The Complainant is Trivago N.V., Germany, internally represented.
The Respondent is tri-vago Malaysia, Myinfo Asia, Malaysia. 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 21, 2019. On November 21, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 22, 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 December 3, 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 December 4, 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 December 9, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 29, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 6, 2020. The Center appointed Luiz E. Montaury Pimenta as the sole panelist in this matter on January 22, 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 The Complainant is a company founded in January 2005; and is one of the largest companies in the world specialized in price-comparison services, travel booking, travel reservation, organization of travel events and trips. The Complainant also maintains a well-known worldwide hotel comparison website: “www.trivago.com”. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for TRIVAGO in numerous jurisdictions throughout the world, inter alia, the International trademark registration no. 910828 for TRIVAGO, registered on August 18, 2006, and the International trademark registration no. 1211017 for TRIVAGO, registered on November 18, 2013. The disputed domain name was registered on January 22, 2018. The disputed domain name resolved to a website that purports to offer various booking and price-comparison services including hotel booking and price-comparison services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant First, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, being almost identical. The disputed domain name has the exact same spelling as the Complainant’s trademark with the slight difference of a hyphen (“-”) used between the first and the second syllable (“tri-vago”), which would not be sufficient to distinguish it from the Complainant’s marks. Second, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been licensed or permitted to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a bona fide or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Third, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant maintains a well-known worldwide hotel comparison website under its trademark TRIVAGO. It is not possible to conceive a plausible situation where the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark and business when it registered the disputed domain name. The website at the disputed domain name provides similar services to Internet users. The Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet users for commercial gain. Finally, the Complainant seeks to have the disputed domain name transferred to it. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Policy establishes three elements, specified in paragraph 4(a), that must be established by the Complainant to obtain relief. These elements are: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns various trademark registrations for TRIVAGO throughout the world. The disputed domain name incorporates the TRIVAGO trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of an hyphen (“-”) used between the first and the second syllable (“tri-vago”) and from the point of view of the Panel, the fact of including a hyphen does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. Further, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded when assessing confusing similarity under the first element 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 licensed or permitted the Respondent to use its trademark in any fashion. 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. Although the Respondent’s name includes “tri-vago”, based on the case file, the Panel finds there is no evidence showing that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. 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 Considering the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel finds that it is impossible that the Respondent did not know of the TRIVAGO trademark, especially in light of the content of the website at the disputed domain name and using “tri-vago” in identical color scheme as the Complainant’s TRIVAGO trademark on the website. Thus it is clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it chose the disputed domain name. Bad faith can also be found where the Respondent “knew or should have known” of the Complainant’s trademark rights and nevertheless registered the disputed domain name in which it had no rights or legitimate interests. This Panel also believes that the expression “tri-vago” is similar to the trademark TRIVAGO and, therefore, may confuse the public about the business origin, the quality of products or services, and about the owner of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolved to a website that purports to offer the similar services as the Complainant. The Panel agrees that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name with the intent to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain. Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy regarding bad faith registration and use, 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 Luiz E. Montaury Pimenta
Sole Panelist
Date: February 5, 2020.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy