The Complainant is Trivago N.V., Germany, internally represented.
The Respondent is Omar Abdo, Egypt. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 15, 2019. On October 15, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 16, 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 October 17, 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 October 21, 2019. 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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 22, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 11, 2019. The Center received several email communication from the Respondent on October 22, 2019, and October 24, 2019; however, the Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties that it was proceeding to the panel appointment stage on November 12, 2019. The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on November 15, 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. On November 15 and 18, 2019, the Center received brief email communications from the Respondent, which did not go to the merits of the Complaint. 4. Factual Background The Complainant owns the international trademark registration no. 1211017 for the trademark TRIVAGO, registered on November 18, 2013. The predecessor of the Complainant owned the international trademark registration no. 910828 for the trademark TRIVAGO, registered on August 18, 2006. Said registration was registered in the Complainant’s name on November 18, 2013. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 17, 2018. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety preceded by the word “the”, which does not eliminate confusing similarity. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) can be ignored. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers comparison of hotel prices, which is the same service offered by the Complainant. The service provided on the said website is powered by a competitor of the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent owns any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and the Complainant has not licensed the Respondent the use of its trademark. There are no trademark applications or registrations for “thetrivago”. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence the Respondent is making a bona fide or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. On the contrary, the Respondent is making an unfair use of the disputed domain name through misleading consumers for commercial gain. The disputed domain name is being used to display a website that operates in the travel industry and offers comparison of hotel prices, which is the same service offered by the Complainant and this is being undertaken by using a competitor of the Complainant. The trademark TRIVAGO has no dictionary meaning and was registered 12 years before the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to pass himself off as the Complainant. Attracting internet users through the creation of a misleading association with the Complainant disrupts the business of the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent provides services similar to those offered by the Complainant, which indicates that the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet users for commercial gain. The Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark and intended to attract the Internet traffic directed to the Complainant’s website. The Complainant maintains a well-known hotel comparison website since 2006, which is currently operating in 55 markets and available in more than 30 languages. The Complainant is listed on NASDAQ and its yearly revenue reaches EUR 1 billion. The Complainant has pioneered hotel metasearch services, and has registered its trademark throughout the world. The Complainant further advertises its services through a variety of channels. On the basis of the above, it is not plausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant, its services, and its trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. None of the Respondent’s brief email communications went into the merits of the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the trademark TRIVAGO in many jurisdictions. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark TRIVAGO. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark TRIVAGO combined with the definite article “the”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the trademark TRIVAGO, particularly in light of the fact that the trademark TRIVAGO is recognizable in the disputed domain name. The gTLD “.com” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website which offers a service identical to that offered by the Complainant. The Panel does not find this to be a bona fide offering of goods and services within the meaning of the Policy. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The element of bad faith is evidenced by the fact that the trademark TRIVAGO is well known and has been in use for more than a decade before the disputed domain name got registered. Furthermore, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves offers services competing with the Complainant. Hence, it must be that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its trademark, and has registered and used the disputed domain name comprising the Complainant’s mark with the aim of attracting consumers to his website with the intent of commercial gain, by creating an impression of being affiliated with the Complainant. Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of 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 Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: November 21, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy