The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Lewis Silkin LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is M Bolat, the Netherlands.
2. The Domain Names and RegistrarThe disputed domain names
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 1, 2021. On July 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to SIDN a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On July 6, 2021, SIDN transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 7, 2021. In accordance with the Regulations, article 7.1, the due date for Response was July 27, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 28, 2021.
The Center appointed Thijs van Aerde as the panelist in this matter on September 13, 2021. 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 BackgroundThe Complainant operates a global travel search engine, enabling its customers to, inter alia, search and compare flights and hotels. According to the Complainant, it makes use of various domain names, among which
The Complainant holds a number of trademark registrations worldwide including:
- European Union Trademark SKYSCANNER, registered on March 3, 2006, registration no. 0900393;
- European Union Trademark SKYSCANNER, registered on December 1, 2009, registration no. 1030086;
hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Trademarks”.
SIDN informed the Center that the Disputed Domain Names were registered by the Respondent between January 15, 2014, and April 28, 2016. The Disputed Domain Names automatically redirect Internet users to “www.vliegtickets.nl”, a travel website associated with a competitor of the Complainant.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant’s contentions may be summarized as follows. The Complainant provides a range of facts and arguments, concluding as follows:
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trademarks.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent lacks any rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsPursuant to article 2.1 of the Regulations the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
a. the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to:
I) a trademark or trade name protected under Dutch law in which the Complainant has rights; or
II) a personal name registered in the General Municipal Register (Gemeentelijke Basisadministratie) of a municipality in the Netherlands, or the name of a Dutch public legal entity or the name of an association or foundation registered in the Netherlands under which the Complainant undertakes public activities on a permanent basis; and,
b. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names; and,
c. the Disputed Domain Names have been registered or are being used in bad faith.
As the Respondent has not filed a response, the Panel shall rule on the basis of 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 SimilarThe Complainant established that it has rights in the Trademarks.
The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trademarks as they contain obvious misspellings of the Trademarks, due to the inversion or omission of one or two letters, or addition of one or two letters to the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER word mark. The Panel finds that each of the Disputed Domain Names contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the Trademarks, see Digital Revolution BV v. Domain Admin, Hush Whois Protection Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. DNL2018-0050, and section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).1
The country code Top-Level Domain “.nl” may be disregarded when assessing the confusing similarity between the domain name on the one hand, and the relevant trademark on the other hand, see Roompot Recreatie Beheer B.V. v. Edoco LTD,
WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0008.
The Complainant has established the first element of article 2.1 of the Regulations.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsPursuant to article 2.1(b) of the Regulations, the onus of establishing the Respondent’s lack of rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names falls on the Complainant. It is well established under the Regulations that inherent difficulties arise for a complainant in proving a negative, especially as relevant information concerning (lack of) rights to or legitimate interests is in the possession of a respondent. Consequently, it is generally sufficient for a complainant to raise a prima facie case against the respondent under this element, shifting the evidential burden to the respondent to rebut that prima facie case. See, Auto 5 v. E. Shiripour,
WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0027, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Trademarks. Further, the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s contentions and there is no evidence or reason to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names (article 3.1(b) of the Regulations).
The Disputed Domain Names redirect Internet users to a competing travel website. This use cannot be considered a legitimate noncommercial use of the Disputed Domain Names under article 3.1(c) of the Regulations, nor does it amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services under article 3.1(a) of the Regulations. Instead, it demonstrates the Respondent’s intent to misleadingly divert consumers looking for the Complainant’s website and services.
The Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of article 2.1 of the Regulations.
C. Registered or Used in Bad FaithThe present case is a classic example of typosquatting. The Respondent registered domain names using a variety of likely misspellings of the Trademarks to attract Internet users in search of the Complainant’s website and reroute them to a competitor.
The use of the Disputed Domain Names demonstrates the Respondent’s intention to confuse Internet users seeking the Complainant’s services. There is nothing on record to contradict the inference that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names is designed to unfairly capitalize on the goodwill and fame of the Trademarks. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s conduct is an attempt to derive financial benefit from typosquatting, thus constituting bad faith.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith and that the requirement of article 2.1(c) of the Regulations has been met.
7. DecisionFor all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with articles 1 and 14 of the Regulations, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Names
Thijs van Aerde
Panelist
Date: September 27, 2021
1 In view of the fact that the Regulations are to an extent based on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), it is well established that both cases decided under the Regulations and cases decided under the UDRP, and therefore WIPO Overview 3.0, may be relevant to the determination of this proceeding (see, e.g., Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Beuk Horeca B.V.,
WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0050).