Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom.
Respondent is Domain Admin, Hush Whois Protection Ltd., Seychelles. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 19, 2020. On February 20, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to SIDN a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 21, 2020, SIDN transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names (the “Regulations”). In accordance with the Regulations, articles 5.1 and 16.4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 25, 2020. In accordance with the Regulations, article 7.1, the due date for Response was March 16, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 21, 2020. The Center appointed Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan as the panelist in this matter on April 10, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panelist has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Regulations, article 9.2. 4. Factual Background Complainant is an online travel agency which attracts approximately 100 million visitors per month. According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant owns several trademark registrations for SKYSCANNER, including the International trademark SKYSCANNER with registration number 900393, date of registration March 3, 2006, also applicable in the European Union. In addition, Complainant operates various websites containing the SKYSCANNER mark, including “www.skyscanner.net” and “www.skyscanner.nl”. The Domain Name, The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website that appears to be operated by Respondent, but redirects to various third-party websites, including at one point, according to information provided in the Complaint, to Complainant’s own website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark as the Domain Name is visually, aurally and conceptually similar to Complainant’s trademark. The only difference is that in the Domain Name a third letter “n” is added to Complainant’s trademark. Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is a deliberate misspelling of Complainant’s trademark. According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Complainant asserts that it has not granted Respondent authorization to use a confusingly similar variation of its trademark. According to Complainant, the Domain Name does not resolve to an active website. According to Complainant, Respondent is not using the Domain Name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant submits that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. According to Complainant Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name constitutes a classic case of typosquatting. According to the information provided by Complainant the Domain Name redirects to Complainant’s main website, which demonstrates that Respondent seeks to mislead consumers by creating an affiliation with or connection to Complainant’s trademarks. The intent to mislead remains a threat to Complainant’s rights in SKYSCANNER, even more so as it enjoys a global reputation. Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered the Domain Name with a view to selling it to Complainant or its competitors for an amount that exceeds its documented out-of-pocket costs; on the domain name marketplace “www.sedo.com” the Domain Name is offered for sale for an amount of USD 1,088. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Based on article 2.1 of the Regulations, a claim to transfer a domain name must meet three cumulative conditions: a. the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or trade name protected under Dutch law in which the complainant has rights, or other name mentioned in article 2.1(a) under II of the Regulations; and b. the respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name; and c. the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. As Respondent has not filed a Response, the Panel shall rule based on the Complaint. In accordance with article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Complaint shall in that event be granted, unless the Panel considers it to be without basis in law or in fact. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Pursuant to article 2.1(a) of the Regulations, Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or tradename protected under Dutch law in which Complainant has rights. Complainant has established that it is the owner of an International trademark registration for SKYSCANNER, which registration is also applicable in the European Union. The Domain Name, The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the Panel’s opinion, Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Based on the undisputed submission and evidence provided by Complainant the Domain Name does not resolve to an active website but redirects to third-party websites, including the main website of Complainant itself. The Panel does not consider such use a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Respondent is also not commonly known by the Domain Name nor has it acquired any trademark or service mark rights. No Response to the Complaint was filed and Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie case. Under these circumstances the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Considering the distinctiveness of Complainant’s trademark the Panel finds that Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s rights. This is also suggested by Respondent’s choice of registration, namely of a term which obviously corresponds to a misspelling of Complaint’s trademark. The Panel furthermore notes that the Domain Name is effectively offered for sale at a price of USD 1,088, presumably well in excess of the cost of registration. More generally, the Panel notes that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in multiple other cases under the Regulations and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”)1, which suggests a pattern of cybersquatting conduct on the part of Respondent (see Digital Revolution BV v. Domain Admin, Hush Whois Protection Ltd.WIPO Case No. DNL2018-0050; Ruby Life Inc. v. Hush Whois Protection Ltd.WIPO Case No. D2019-2430; Amundi Asset Management v. Domain Admin, Hush Whois Protection Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2019-1494; G4S Plc v. Domain Admin, Hush Whois Protection Ltd.,WIPO Case No. 2018‑2551; and Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. v. Domain Admin, Hush Whois Prottnction Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2018-1359). 7. Decision For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with articles 1 and 14 of the Regulations, the Panel orders that the Domain Name, Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan 1 In view of the fact that that the Regulations are to an extent based on the UDRP, it is well established that cases decided under both the Regulations and the UDRP are relevant to this proceeding (see, e.g., Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Beuk Horeca B.V.,WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0050).
Panelist
Date: April 24, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy