The Complainant is Jet2.com Limited, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP, UK.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Jai Norman, Alexia Bargewell, UK.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 13, 2021. On October 14, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 15, 2021, 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 October 20, 2021, 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 October 25, 2021.
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 October 26, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 15, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 16, 2021.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on November 24, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is a company incorporated in England and Wales. It is a UK-based leisure airline and travel service provider.
The Complainant is the owner of various registrations for the trademark JET2, including, for example, UK trademark registration number UK00002576462 for the word mark JET2, registered on September 9, 2011, in International Classes 9, 16, 39, and 43.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 26, 2021.
There is no evidence that the disputed domain name has ever resolved to any active website. However, the Complainant has exhibited evidence of email communications sent from an address “[…]@jet2helps.com” further details of which are set out below.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant submits that it has traded under the mark JET2 since 2002 and is now the UK’s third largest airline, flying to over 60 destinations across Europe and beyond. The Complainant reports total revenue of GBP 212.8 million in 2021 with an advertising spend in excess of GBP 10 million in its last completed financial year. The Complainant provides evidence of industry awards and media coverage, and contends that it enjoys substantial reputation and goodwill in the JET2 mark.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its JET2 trademark. It contends that its trademark is distinctive and is wholly incorporated within the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the additional term “helps” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from its JET2 trademark, because this is a descriptive term that would be understood to refer to the Complainant’s customer services.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It contends that the Respondent has not commonly been known by the disputed domain name or any other name corresponding to its JET2 trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, but is using it instead for the purpose of impersonating the Complainant in the circumstances described below.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. In particular, the Complainant provides evidence of emails sent to its customers from a supposed “customer services” email address “[...]@jet2helps.com”. It alleges that such customers were contacted by the Respondent after leaving tweets on the Complainant’s Twitter account and subsequently misled into believing the Respondent was, or was connected with, the Complainant. The Complainant exhibits email exchanges to and from the address referred to above, which relate to customers’ existing travel booking with the Complainant and include the following content:
(1) A number of the emails are signed “Customer Service Advisor” and state “Thanks for contacting the Customer Services Team”. The emails then go on to include two of the Complainant’s web URLs and two links to the Complainant’s apps. They also include numerous paragraphs about the Complainant and its services, commencing “Jet2.com flies from nine UK bases to more than 50 sun, city and ski destinations. Our famously friendly service wins many accolades, including Best Airline – UK and Best Low-Cost Airline”.
(2) One of the emails states: “Due to the ongoing uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, we’re making some adjustments to our flying programme […]”.
(3) A number of the emails purport to deal with changes to the Complainant’s customers’ booking arrangements. Some of these request administration fees in various amounts and one requires a payment of over GBP 3,000 to reinstate a cancelled booking. One email requests “authorization for me to debit the account”, which the customer challenges, stating that they cannot be expected to put their credit card details in an email. The reply to this is that “We handle customers bookings information with secure SSL to our email servers in order to keep not only your date safe but your booking details. We are mostly still working from home so we have to adapt to these changes”. Another email requests that the customer “reconfirm” the dates of birth of both passengers and the billing address.
The Complainant contends that, as a result of the above, it is clear that the disputed domain name has been used to target the Complainant’s customers regarding existing bookings, impersonate the Complainant, obtain sensitive personal information from customers and supply airline and travel services for financial gain. The Complainant submits, in particular, that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its email address by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s JET2 trademark.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsIn order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the mark JET2. The disputed domain name fully incorporates that mark, together with the term “helps”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsIn the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant, as discussed further below, cannot amount to bona fide commercial use of the disputed domain name. There being no other evidence of rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithBased on the evidence provided by the Complainant of emails sent from an address linked to the disputed domain name, the Panel has no doubt that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name dishonestly to impersonate the Complainant. The emails include extensive references to the Complainant’s official websites and other resources, use the term “we” when referring to the Complainant’s flights and are otherwise plainly liable to mislead correspondents into believing the “Customer Services Team” with which they are dealing is that of the Complainant. The Panel is further satisfied that, in conjunction with this deceptive conduct, the Respondent has sought to obtain payment details and personal information from the Complainant’s customers.
The Panel notes that the Respondent has not disputed the Complainant’s allegations.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has acted in a manner contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, namely to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s name and trademark as to the source of the Respondent’s services.
The Panel readily infers in the circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of using it in manner described above and finds, therefore, that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. DecisionFor 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,
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: December 7, 2021