Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Lewis Silkin LLP, United Kingdom.
Respondent is Abdelaziz Tamim, SERVEASA, Egypt. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“Center”) on March 5, 2021. On March 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 8, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 9, 2021 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 March 9, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 1, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 7, 2021. The Center appointed Debra J. Stanek as the sole panelist in this matter on April 14, 2021. 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 uses the trademark SKYSCANNER in connection with providing travel information and travel arrangement services through a website, providing travel and related information, among other things, as well as travel-related advertising services. Complainant operates a website at The disputed domain name was registered on February 28, 2021 and originally resolved to a page that offered travel information for flights, hotel accommodations, and automobile rental. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant 1. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant owns a global portfolio of trademark registrations for its SKYSCANNER mark for travel-related advertising, information, and search engine services. In addition, Complainant operates a website at The disputed domain name is virtually identical to Complainant’s SKYSCANNER mark; the only difference is that the disputed domain name begins with the letter “i.” 2. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant is not aware that Respondents owns any registered rights in any trademark that comprises any part of the disputed domain name. No other individual or business owns registered trademark rights in the SKYSCANNER mark. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its SKYSCANNER mark. Further, the term “Skyscanner” is not a descriptive or generic term. The disputed domain name resolved to a website that displays a tool that a visitor may use to search for and book flights. Because providing travel information and travel services under the term “iskyscanner” is trademark infringement, that use cannot provide Respondent with a “legitimate non-commercial” interest in the disputed domain name or constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. 3. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Respondent registered Complainant’s registration for the SKYSCANNER mark dates back to 2002 and has become famous. Therefore, Respondent would have been aware of Complainant and its SKYSCANNER mark when it registered the disputed domain name. There is no plausible explanation for Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a website that contains a flight aggregator tool – directly competing with the tools offered by Complainant. Respondent is seeking to mislead consumers into believing – incorrectly – that the travel arrangement and information services provided originate or are affiliated with Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To prevail, a complainant must prove, as to the disputed domain name, that: (i) It is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights. (ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to it. (iii) It has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A respondent’s failure to respond to a complaint does not automatically result in a finding for the complainant. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3. A complainant has the burden of establishing the required elements. The Panel may, however, draw inferences from a respondent’s default as it considers appropriate. See Rules, paragraph 14(b). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established its rights in the mark SKYSCANNER by virtue of the evidence of its trademark registrations, including its United Kingdom registration, filed in 2002. Respondent’s domain name differs only as to the addition of the letter “i” at the beginning of the mark, along with the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain. The disputed domain name is not identical to Complainant’s mark. However, based on a straightforward comparison of the textual components of the mark, the Panel finds that the mark is recognizable in the disputed domain name (excluding the Top-Level Domain). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7 and 1.8. The addition of the letter “i” does not differentiate or distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel shares the consensus view that a complainant may establish that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of a domain name by making a prima facie showing. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1 (once complainant makes a prima facie case, burden of showing rights or legitimate interests in the domain name shifts to respondent). There is no indication or reason to believe that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. It does not appear that Respondent is making any use of the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering. The disputed domain name appears to have been used to offer travel-related services similar to those offered by Complainant under its SKYSCANNER mark. Given that the term “skyscanner” is not a descriptive or generic term, its inclusion in the disputed domain name appears to be a reference to Complainant. It does not appear that Respondent’s use is either noncommercial or otherwise a fair use. The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing under this element. Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing. The Panel concludes that Complainant has established that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed above, the term “skyscanner” is not generic or descriptive. Complainant’s SKYSCANNER mark predates the registration of the disputed domain name by a number of years, and Complainant’s SKYSCANNER mark and the associated travel-related services, website, and mobile app are well-known. The evidence presented by Complainant suggests Respondent actually knew of Complainant’s mark and travel-related services and adopted and used the disputed domain name on a site offering similar It therefore appears that the disputed domain name is being used to attract visitors for commercial gain by confusing them into believing that they are accessing a site affiliated with Complainant. In light of these facts and in the absence of any explanation or response from Respondent, the Panel finds that Complainant has established that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name 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, Debra J. Stanek
travel-related services with Complainant’s mark in mind.
Sole Panelist
Date: April 23, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy