The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service Ltd c/o Dynadot, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 5, 2020. On March 5, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 6, 2020, 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 March 12, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 1, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 2, 2020. The Center appointed Martin Michaus Romero as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 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 1) The Complainant is a leading global air ticketing specialist. The Complainant provides customers with expertise in traveling strategies. 2) The Complainant operates the website “www.skyscanner.net” attracting 100 million visits per month and, to date, 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. 3) The Complainant owns 91 trademark registrations containing the term “skyscanner”. Some of the most relevant for this matter are: a. International trademark registration No. 900393 for SKYSCANNER (registered on March 3, 2006, in International Classes 35, 38, and 39); b. International trademark registration No. 1030086 for SKYSCANNER (registered on December 1, 2009, in International Classes 35, 39, and 42); c. International trademark registration No. 1133058 for SKYSCANNER and device (registered on August 16, 2012, in International Classes 35, 39, and 42); d. Indian trademark registration No. 1890840 for SKYSCANNER (with application date of December 2, 2009); e. Indian trademark application No. 2287020 for SKYSCANNER and device (with application date of February 22, 2012); f. United Kingdom trademark registration No. 2313916 for SKYSCANNER (registered on 30 April, 2004); g. Canadian trademark registration No. TMA786689 for SKYSCANNER (registered on January 10, 2011); h. New Zealand trademark registration No. 816550 for SKYSCANNER (registered on October 7, 2010). 4) In November 2016, the Complainant was acquired by Ctrip, a large-scale Chinese online travel agency in a deal worth approximately GBP 1.4 billion. 5) As of November 12, 2019, the Complainant’s website “www.skyscanner.net” was ranked 1,671st globally for Internet traffic and engagement and the 107th in the United Kingdom. 6) The disputed domain name was registered on January 26, 2006 and used to redirect to several different websites, including the Complainant’s official website. The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states in its Complaint that the Respondent: 1) registered the disputed domain name which is identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark SKYSCANNER without the Complainant’s knowledge or authorization; 2) registered the disputed domain name to create confusion amongst Internet users, that the disputed domain name is affiliated with the Complainant; 3) has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and 4) likely intended to confuse the Complainant’s customers or potential customers, considering the complete reproduction of the SKYSCANNER trademark in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name was selected, registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith and not for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any fair use, but rather to mislead Internet users, disrupt the Complainant’s business, and affect the reputation or notoriety of the SKYSCANNER trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “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.” Considering that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, in order to determine whether the Complainant has met its burden as stated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel bases its Decision on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has submitted evidence of its rights in the SKYSCANNER trademark. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name The SKYSCANNER trademark is easily recognizable within the disputed domain name, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix,”.com”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the SKYSCANNER trademark. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not received permission or authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent did not substantively reply to the Complainant’s contentions, and therefore has not provided any evidence to demonstrate the contrary. It should be pointed out that nothing in the available record indicates that the Respondent is an individual, business, or corporation known by the name “skyscannner”. Furthermore, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of good or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, has made demonstrable preparation to use it for a bona fide offering of good or services, owned a trademark or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, it is clear to the Panel that the registration and the use of the disputed domain name has been in bad faith, by including the SKYSCANNER trademark, to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain. The inclusion of the gTLD “.com” in the disputed domain name attempts to deceive or lead Internet users to believe that the disputed domain name is operated by the Complainant. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith due to the following: 1) According to the WhoIs details, the disputed domain name was registered on January 26, 2006. The Complainant’s United Kingdom trademark registration No. 2313916 SKYSCANNER was filed on October 23, 2002 and granted on April 30, 2004, in Classes, 35, 38, and 39, and has been in continuous and intense use since the trademark registration was filed. The disputed domain name was registered in 2006, four years after the Complainant’s trademark was filed. The disputed domain name was registered without authorization as the Complainant did not grant the Respondent any authorization to use its trademark in a domain name. 2) The previous and current use of the disputed domain name was deliberately conducted to take advantage of the reputation of the business activities of the Complainant and goodwill of its trademark. The Panel is of the opinion that at the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent must have been aware of the existence and use of the SKYSCANNER trademark by the Complainant. 3) The Respondent has demonstrated, by registering the disputed domain name, which reproduces the Complainant’s trademark with a typo, an intent to capitalize on the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark. 4) The above-mentioned activities, as well as the Respondent’s default constitute, in view of the Panel, a clear evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. 5) The screenshot from “Sedo.com”, an online domain name marketplace, filed as evidence by the Complainant, displays an offer to sale the disputed domain name and evidences the primary intention of selling the disputed domain name to the Complainant or a third party and taking advantage of the Complainant’s reputation. This also negatively affects the Complainant’s online presence and disrupts the Complainant’s business. See paragraphs 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies 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 Martín Michaus Romero
Sole Panelist
Date: April 22, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy