Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, of United Kingdom, represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom.
Respondent is Rehman Abdur, of Cyprus. 2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar
The disputed domain name is The Registry of the disputed domain name is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”). The Registrar of the disputed domain name is Vautron Rechenzentrum AG. 3. Procedural History The Request to Change the Language of the ADR Proceeding (the “Request”) was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) pursuant to the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”), Paragraph A(3)(b), on November 5, 2020. On November 5, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 6, 2020, the Registry 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 Request. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 23, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registry, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Request. Complainant filed an amendment to the Request on November 26, 2020. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph A(3)(b)(3), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Request, and the proceedings commenced on December 2, 2020. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph A(3)(b)(4), the due date for Response was December 14, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 29, 2020. The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on January 21, 2021 in accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph A(3)(b)(4). 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 ADR Rules, Paragraph B(5). 4. Factual Background The disputed domain name was registered on June 10, 2011 and resolves to an inactive website. The language of the registration agreement is Greek. There is no agreement between the Parties with regard to the applicable language in the ADR Proceeding. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant requests for a change of the language of the ADR Proceeding in accordance with Paragraph A(3)(a) of the ADR Rules and asserts that it has established circumstances that justify the acceptance of such Request. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In accordance with Paragraph A(3)(a) of the ADR Rules, “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the ADR Proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name. In the absence of an agreement between the Parties, the Panel may in its sole discretion, having regard to the circumstances of the ADR Proceeding, decide on the written request of a Complainant that the language of the ADR Proceeding will be different than the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name”. Under Article 22(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004 (the “Regulation”) the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, unless otherwise agreed or specified in the registration agreement. Therefore, the principle is that the language of the ADR Proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The paragraph also provides that the Panel has the authority to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. In this case, the language of the Registrar’s registration agreement is Greek. Notwithstanding the registration agreement being in Greek, Complainant requests that English be adopted as the language of the present proceeding. The Panel takes into account the following circumstances of the present proceeding and assertions of Complainant: - Respondent has not submitted any response or communication with the Center claiming that English is a language beyond his comprehension; - the Registrar is a German entity and Respondent has transacted with such entity, presumably having knowledge of other languages; - Complainant is a company seated in the United Kingdom; - the disputed domain name does not resolve to a website in Greek. Rather it resolves to inactive website stating in English “This site can’t be reached”; - the disputed domain name consists of the two English words “sky” and “scanner”, which combined together formulate an arbitrary and fanciful combination which is the trademark of Complainant SKYSCANNER; - the disputed domain name is identical to the SKYSCANNER trademark of Complainant; - Respondent apparently had knowledge of the United Kingdom company of Complainant and its rights and therefore at least some knowledge of the English language; - as Complainant asserted and Respondent did not rebut, there are difficulties of Complainant to translate the Complaint and this would place a disproportionate burden on it. Respondent has been given an opportunity to object to the language of the proceedings being English through the submission of response to Complainant’s request but has chosen not to respond. In accordance with the general powers attributed to the Panel under Paragraph B(7)(b) and (c) of the ADR Rules, the Panel shall ensure on the one hand side that the parties are treated fairly and with equality, and shall ensure, on the other hand, that the ADR Proceeding takes place with due expedition (see Chevron Corporation, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC, and Chevron Belgium BV v. Kristiina Loodus, AS QLS WIPO Case No. DEUL2020-0005). In the present case, in view of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has more than an adequate knowledge of the English language so that proceeding in English is fair and equal. The Panel accepts Complainant’s request and determines that the language of the proceeding will be English (see GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. Jacek Bernad, JACK-TRANS Jacek Bernad,WIPO Case No. DEUL2020-0003 and Chevron Corporation, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC, and Chevron Belgium BV v. Kristiina Loodus, AS QLS, WIPO Case No. DEUL2020-0005). 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph A(3)(b)(6) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that the language of the ADR proceeding shall be English and any future submission by the Parties (including the submission of a new Complaint) regarding the disputed domain name This Panel’s decision shall be final and not subject to appeal. Marina Perraki
Sole Panelist
Date: February 1, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy