The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Keltie IP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Kadeer Razeen, United States of America (“United States”). 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 19, 2019. On November 19, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 19, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 21, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 11, 2019. The Center received an email communication from an apparent third party claiming to be associated with the Domain Name on November 26, 2019. On the same day, the Center requested this third party to clarify its relationship (if any) to the Respondent, and to provide information sufficient to establish the legitimacy of its request in the context of the current proceedings. No further communication was received from this third party. Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Rules, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed with panel appointment on December 12, 2019. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on December 16, 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 an online travel company with a website available in over 30 languages and used by 100 million people per month. The Complainant’s SKYSCANNER smart device app has been downloaded over 70 million times. The Complainant owns rights in the trademark SKYSCANNER, such as International Trademark Registration Nos. 900393 (registered on March 3, 2006), 1030086 (registered on December 1, 2009), and 1133058 (registered on August 16, 2012). The Respondent registered the Domain Name on December 2, 2018. The Domain Name resolves to a parked webpage containing pay-per-click (“PPC”) links to third party businesses providing travel arrangement services offers. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant has documented trademark registrations in the trademark SKYSCANNER. According to the Complainant, the Domain Name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s trademark rights and domain name The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. To the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent does not own any rights in any trademarks which comprise part or the entirety of the Domain Name, nor is the Respondent commonly known under this name. The Complainant has not given its consent for the Respondent to use its registered trademark in any manner. Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith as the Respondent’s interest cannot be legitimate nor is there a bona fide use. The Domain Name resolves to a parked page containing links to third party businesses. The Respondent’s use is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Given the fame of the Complainant’s trademark, it is highly likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights prior to acquiring or registering the Domain Name. Moreover, passive holding of a Domain Name, which cannot be used legitimately, constitutes registration and use in bad faith when the Domain Name is being used to prevent the Complainant from using the Domain Name for legitimate commercial purposes. B. Respondent The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. However, as mentioned under the Procedural History, the Center received an email from an apparent third party, on November 26, 2019. The Panel has reviewed the email, and would like to insert the following part: “We have received from communication regarding the above subject. We would like to bring to your notice that this Domain name was available on godaddy.com for purchase, We purchased it and we are trying to understand what is to be done. If it is illegal then please advise us what we have to do about it. Request to please send us the complaint copy. The Complainant has established rights in the trademark SKYSCANNER. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, save the “the” in front. For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent. The Domain Name resolves to a parked webpage containing links to third party businesses, some of them resolving to competitors of the Complainant. Such use is in the context of this case not bona fide. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based on the evidence, it is likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant’s trademark rights predate the Domain Name registration. The fact that the Domain Name resolves to a parked page containing links to third party businesses in the travel industry, may also point to bad faith. In the absence of any justifiable explanation from the Respondent, the Panel agrees that the evidence of the case points to bad faith. The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the 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 Domain Name Mathias Lilleengen
Thanking you.” 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Sole Panelist
Date: December 17, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy