The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Saeed Hassan, Pakistan. 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 20, 2019. On November 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 21, 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 28, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 18, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 20, 2019. The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on December 30, 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 operates an online price comparison site for airline travel, car hire, and hotel accommodation, among other services. According to the Complainant, its website at “www.skyscanner.net” attracts 100 million visits per month and its “Skyscanner” smart device app has been downloaded over 70 million times. The Complainant’s services are available in over 30 languages and in 70 currencies. The Complainant owns, in numerous jurisdictions including Canada, the European Union, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, registrations for the word trademark SKYSCANNER (one of the earliest of which is United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00002313916, filed on October 23, 2002, registered on April 30, 2004). The disputed domain name was registered on June 19, 2019. The Complainant has provided a screenshot dated November 18, 2019, showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page containing pay-per-click (“PPC”) links advertising various goods and services under the headings of “Insurance”, “Education”, “Health”, “Finance”, “Travel”, and “Electronics”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its SKYSCANNER trademark and its website “www.skyscanner.net”, and that it is permissible for the panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because: (i) as far as the Complainant is aware the Respondent does not own any registered rights in any trademarks which comprise part or all of the disputed domain name, and is not commonly known as “Skyscanner”; (ii) the term “Skyscanner” is not descriptive in any way, nor does it have any generic, dictionary meaning; (iii) the Complainant has not given its consent for the Respondent to use its registered trademarks in a domain name registration; (iv) the disputed domain name points to a parking page containing PPC links advertising travel arrangement services that originate from the Complainant’s competitors; (v) there is no evidence that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for any meaningful purpose, or that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; and (vi) given the famous nature of the Complainant’s trademark and that no other individual or business owns registered trademark rights in the SKYSCANNER trademark, it is very likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights prior to registering the disputed domain name, and it is inevitable that visitors to the website resolving from it would mistakenly believe it to be associated with the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) given that the Complainant’s registered rights date back to 2002, the Respondent should have been aware of the reputation of the Complainant’s business under its SKYSCANNER trademark at the time it acquired the disputed domain name; (ii) this is a classic case of cybersquatting in order to attract traffic to the website resolving from the disputed domain name and to encourage access to the PPC links displayed, thereby generating revenue for the Respondent; (iii) the disputed domain name is used to mislead consumers as to an affiliation with, or connection to, the Complainant, for commercial gain; (iv) the Respondent can provide no reasonable or meaningful reason to justify its acquisition of the disputed domain name in a manner that would not take advantage of the Complainant’s rights; (v) the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registering domain names in bad faith as the Registrant’s email address is matched against 1,976 domain names, a number of which contain famous trademarks or deliberate misspellings thereof; and (vi) it is possible the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant, or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket expenses, as a screenshot from Afternic.com shows the disputed domain name is offered for sale for USD 1,488, whilst the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs are unlikely to have exceeded USD 50. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Once the gTLD “.xyz” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists solely of the Complainant’s registered word trademark SKYSCANNER. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its SKYSCANNER trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The evidence shows that the disputed domain name was used to resolve to a parking page containing a large number of PPC links under several headings, one of which is “Travel”, the Complainant’s area of business. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant first registered its SKYSCANNER trademark. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the use of its SKYSCANNER trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the evidence on the record provided by the Complainant indicates that the Respondent has offered the disputed domain name for sale at a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name and has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating confusion in the minds of the public as to an association between the website and the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been 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 Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: January 10, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy