Complainant is Urlaubsguru GmbH, Germany, represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.
Respondent is Reinhard Grassl, Germany.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 26, 2021. On October 26, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 28, 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 Complainant on November 4, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 9, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 11, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 1, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 2, 2021.
The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on December 13, 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 BackgroundComplainant is a company organized under the laws of Germany that is active in the online travel industry.
Complainant has provided evidence to be the registered owner of numerous trademarks relating to its company name and brand URLAUBSGURU, inter alia, the following with protection for Germany where Respondent is located:
- Word mark URLAUBSGURU, German Patent and Trademark Office (“DPMA”), registration number 302017029474, registration date June 26, 2019, status: active.
Moreover, Complainant has substantiated to own various domain names relating to its URLAUBSGURU trademark, inter alia, the domain name
Respondent, according to the disclosed WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, is a resident of Germany who registered the disputed domain name on August 25, 2021; the latter resolves to a website at “www.urlaubsguru.net”, purporting to offer travel booking services similar to those offered by Complainant and including, inter alia, official logos of both Complainant as well as some of its direct competitors in the online travel industry. A cease-and-desist letter sent by Complainant to Respondent on September 24, 2021, remained unanswered.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantComplainant contends to be one of the leading German providers of travel agency portals, active on the market already since 2012, with nowadays millions of monthly website visitors and social media subscribers.
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its URLAUBSGURU trademark as it incorporates the latter in its entirety without alteration or addition. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant nor has Respondent been otherwise authorized by Complainant to make any use of its URLAUBSGURU trademark, (2) offering travel related services under the disputed domain name that compete with those offered by Complainant cannot be considered bona fide offering of goods or services, and (3) commercial banners on the website under the disputed domain name presumably generating click-through revenue clearly demonstrate that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is intended to be commercial in nature. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since (1) Respondent’s intent to target Complainant can be readily inferred from the content of Respondent’s website under the disputed domain name; and (2) such website purports to offer for commercial gain travel booking services in direct competition with those offered by Complainant which is fulfilling the prerequisites of bad faith use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
B. RespondentRespondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsUnder paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that 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.
Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Panel concludes that the disputed domain name
The disputed domain name incorporates the URLAUBSGURU trademark in its entirety. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety is normally sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see WIPO Overview on WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7). Moreover, noting that the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”), here “.net”, as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1), and given that there are no alterations or additions to Complainant’s URLAUBSGURU trademark in the disputed domain name, it is reasonable to even find for identity between those two.
Therefore, Complainant has established the first element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i).
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Panel is further convinced on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed contentions that Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor can it be found that Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof without intent for commercial gain.
Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s URLAUBSGURU trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the term “Urlaubsguru” on its own. To the contrary, Respondent obviously runs a website under the disputed domain name which purports to offer travel booking services similar to those offered by Complainant and including, inter alia, official logos of both Complainant as well as some of its direct competitors in the online travel industry; on top, such website includes various commercial banners presumably aiming at generating click-through revenue. Such doing by Respondent obviously can neither be considered bona fide nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Now, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating to the contrary (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). Given that Respondent has not submitted a Response, it has not met that burden.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel finally holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
The circumstances to this case leaves no doubt that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s rights in the URLAUBSGURU trademark (notwithstanding any claimed reputation) when registering the disputed domain name and that the latter is clearly directed thereto. Moreover, using the disputed domain name, which is even identical with Complainant’s URLAUBSGURU trademark, to run a website which purports to offer travel booking services similar to those offered by Complainant and including, inter alia, official logos of both Complainant as well as some of its direct competitors in the online travel industry, is a clear indication that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s URLAUBSGURU trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
In connection with this finding, it also carries weight in the eyes of the Panel that Respondent obviously provided false or incomplete contact information in the imprint on the website under the disputed domain name since, according to the email correspondence between the Center and the postal courier DHL, the Written Notice on the Notification of Complaint dated November 11, 2021, which was sent to the person and postal address mentioned in such imprint, could not be delivered. This fact at least throws a light on Respondent’s behavior, which supports the Panel’s bad faith finding.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant has also satisfied the third element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(iii).
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
Stephanie G. Hartung
Sole Panelist
Date: December 16, 2021