The Complainant is WK Travel, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Li Yuan Feng, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) in English on May 31, 2019. On June 3, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 4, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 4, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on in English June 6, 2019.
On June 4, 2019, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on June 6, 2019. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 13, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 3, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 4, 2019.
The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on July 11, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a company headquartered in the United States, and is active in the travel-planning sector. The Complainant claims to realize a turnover of approximately USD 4 billion from global airline ticket sales per year, mainly through its online sales, making it one of the top five online travel agencies based in the United States. The Complainant owns a trademark registration (word mark) for ONETRAVEL, United States trademark number 4545969, registered on June 10, 2014. The registered trademark adduced by the Complainant was successfully registered prior to the registration date of the disputed domain name, which was registered on March 3, 2019. The Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain name is linked to an active webpage which includes a hyperlink that redirects users to another website “”, which appears to be a site offering malware software or a computer virus. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its prior trademark for ONETRAVEL, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant claims that its trademark is well-regarded in the travel-planning sector, and provides evidence of its main official website hosted at “”. Moreover, the Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain name is linked to an active website, redirecting Internet users to download software which is presumed to be malware or a computer virus. The Complainant essentially contends that such use does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and constitutes use in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding
Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.
The Complainant filed its initial Complaint in English. On June 4, 2019, the Center informed the Complainant that the language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese. On June 6, 2019, the Complainant filed its amended Complaint, containing a request that the language of the proceeding be English, accompanied by a letter regarding the language of the proceeding, containing a similar request. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Panel has carefully considered all elements of this case, in particular, the Complainant’s request that the language of the proceeding be English, the lack of comment on the language of the proceeding and the lack of response on the merits of the Respondent (the Panel notes that the Respondent had the opportunity to put forward arguments in either English or Chinese); the Panel also notes, upon review of the evidence produced by the Complainant, that the Respondent has registered a number of domain names containing English words or expressions, from which the Panel deducts that the Respondent is able to understand and communicate in English; and the fact that Chinese as the language of the proceeding could lead to unwarranted delays and costs for the Complainant. In view of all these elements, the Panel rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2. Discussion and Findings on the Merits
The Policy requires the Complainant to prove three elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the sign ONETRAVEL, based on its use and registration of the same as a trademark, incidentally commencing several years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
As to confusing similarity, the disputed domain name consists of two elements, being the Complainant’s trademark ONETRAVEL and the dictionary term “hub”. According to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7, “in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing”. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name contains the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark, as its sole distinctive and dominant element. The addition of the merely descriptive component “hub” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Panel rules that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that the Respondent is not a licensee or authorized reseller, service provider or distributor, and is not making legitimate noncommercial use or fair use of the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel, therefore, considers that none of the circumstances of legitimate interests envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply (see also Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No.
D2001-0903). The Panel also notes that no evidence or arguments have been submitted by the Respondent in reply. The Panel, therefore, rules that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the strong reputation and the fame of the Complainant’s trademark, the registration of the disputed domain name, which incorporates such trademark in its entirety, was clearly intended to freeride on the fame of such trademark, and to mislead and attract Internet users to the disputed domain name. Even a cursory Internet search at the time of registration of the disputed domain name would have made it clear to the Respondent that the Complainant owned, and owns trademark in ONETRAVEL and uses them extensively. Moreover, the addition of the dictionary term “hub” in the disputed domain name reinforces this finding, as it is intended to mislead Internet users, and induces them to believe that the website linked to the disputed domain name provides a hub or central platform for the Complainant’s travel services. In the Panel’s view, this clearly indicates the bad faith of the Respondent, and the Panel, therefore, rules that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
As to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the website linked to the disputed domain name is currently linked to an active page, which provides instructions to Internet users, including a hyperlink to a website (hosted at “”) offering users to download software which is presumed to be malware or a computer virus. In this regard, the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4 states, “[p]anels have held that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. Such purposes include sending email, phishing, identity theft, or malware distribution”. The Panel also notes that even if such software were not malware or a computer virus, then the Respondent would still be using the Complainant’s trademark to mislead and redirect Internet users to a website offering third party software programs. This, by itself, would already suffice for a finding of use in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel rules that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Finally, the Respondent has failed to provide any response or evidence to establish its good faith or absence of bad faith. The Panel, therefore, rules that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third element under the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Deanna Wong Wai Man
Sole Panelist
Date: July 15, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy