The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom (“Complainant”), represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama (“Respondent”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 18, 2019. On November 18, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 18, 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 Complainant on November 20, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 21, 2019 (hereinafter the “Complaint”). The Center verified that the 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 29, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 19, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 20, 2019. The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on January 13, 2020. 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 Complainant is an Internet provider of advertising and related services related to the travel industry. Complainant has registered trademark rights in the mark SKYSCANNER. Its international registration No.900393 of the mark dates from as early as March 3, 2006, and it has trademark registrations in many countries, including Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Belarus, Switzerland, China, Japan, Norway, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Turkey, and the Ukraine. Complaint, Annex 2. Complainant is the registrant of the domain name In November 2016, Complainant was acquired by Ctrip, China’s largest online travel agency. The transaction was worth approximately GB 1.4 billion. The acquisition resulted in many articles in the various business press around the world. Complaint, Annex 5. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 17, 2019. Complaint, Annex 1. Respondent has listed the disputed domain name on the domain name marketplace Sedo.com, offering the disputed domain name for sale for a minimum offer of USD 500. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s website. Complaint, Annex 4. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complaint contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name, and that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark with the addition of the letter “c” proceeding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. It appears to anticipate the typographical error in which the typist accidentally hits the “c” key before entering the gTLD suffix. Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. In the present case Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Respondent has listed the disputed domain name for sale at an online site that serves as a marketplace for domain names. Complainant alleges that disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s website. Moreover, the disputed domain name is similar to and almost identical with Complainant’s trademark and Internet tradename, both of which are well known and both of which long predate the registration of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 name M. Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Date: January 16, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy