The Complainant is Trivago N.V., Germany, represented by Simon Thompson, Germany.
The Respondent is Mediatextual, S.L. B52516028, Spain. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The Disputed Domain Names , are registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 2, 2019. On August 5, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On August 5, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Namess which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 6, 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 August 6, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint 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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 12, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 1, 2019. The Response was filed with the Center on August 29, 2019.
The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on September 12, 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 Trivago N.V., is a German based company which operates a worldwide hotel comparison website, offering booking services and information about tourism and travel.
The Complainant owns various trademark registrations around the word, for the term TRIVAGO, among others:
- TRIVAGO, International Trademark Registration No. 1211017, registered on November 18, 2013; and
- TRIVAGO, International Trademark Registration No. 910828, registered on August 18, 2006.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 6, 2016, while the Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 25, 2016.
Both of the Disputed Domain Names resolves to a webpage which offers services that are identical to those of the Complainant. Moreover, the two of them display a commercial of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows: Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant has argued that the Disputed Domain Names reproduces the TRIVAGO trademark in its entirety. The addition of the word “hotels” in the Disputed Domain Name and the letters “fr” referring to France in the Disputed Domain Name does nothing to distinguish the Disputed Domain Names from the Complainant’s trademark. Rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant states that there is no evidence that the Respondent owns any rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names.
The Complainant alleges that it is not affiliated with the Respondent nor has licensed or permitted the Respondent to use its trademark. The Complainant further states, that the Respondent has no trademark registration for the term TRIVAGO.
Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial use of the Disputed Domain Names, since they are used to offer the same services as the Complainant. Thus, Internet users will likely mistakenly believe that the Disputed Domain Names are related to the Complainant. Registration and use in bad faith
The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant.
The Respondent provides identical services to Internet users as the Complainant.
Finally, the Complainant states that the Respondent selected the Disputed Domain Names in knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. B. Respondent
The Respondent replied that it was not its intention to usurp the Complainant’s trademark; moreover, the Respondent stated that it did not know that it could not use the TRIVAGO trademark in the Disputed Domain Names. Finally, it argued that it was not its intention to cause inconvenience to the Complainant nor that it has obtained an economic benefit from it. 6. Discussions and Findings 6.1. Substantive Matters
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Names in this case:
(i) the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark TRIVAGO, since both of them incorporate the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The addition of the terms “hotels” and “fr” does not negate the confusing similarity.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances, any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names:
(i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service at issue.
There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Names or to use the trademark in the Disputed Domain Names. Furthermore, the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Names.
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Names. Moreover, it had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but instead it vaguely replied.
In addition, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has also misappropriated copyright material from the Complainant by displaying in both websites related to the Disputed Domain Names a commercial video from the Complainant.
As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith.
The fact that the Disputed Domain Names reproduce the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, and both of them are used to offer the same services that the Complainant offers, establishes that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Names.
Moreover, both websites related at the Disputed Domain Names display a commercial video from the Complainant. This conduct confirms that the Respondent knew the Complainant and its trademark rights.
Furthermore, it is important to highlight that in both websites, when a hotel or place is searched, Internet users are redirected to the website of a competitor of the Complainant, Booking Holdings.
In addition, the Respondent has been involved in a previous domain name dispute with the Complainant for the domain names and and has been ordered to transfer the domain names to the Complainant. (SeeWIPO Case No. D2017-1099, Trivago GmbH v. Mediatextual, S.L. B52516028).
The circumstances in the case before the Panel indicate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Names and it has intentionally created likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s TRIVAGO trademark in order to attract Internet users for its own commercial gain or the commercial gain of a competitor of the Complainant.
Due to this conduct, it is obvious that the Respondent intentionally created likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and its websites in order to attract Internet users for commercial gain, as described by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account and for all the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. 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 Names, and be transferred to the Complainant.
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: September 26, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy