The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Lewis Silkin LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is A. Algozor, the Netherlands.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 6, 2021. On July 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to SIDN a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 7, 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 8, 2021. In accordance with the Regulations, article 7.1, the due date for Response was July 28, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 17, 2021.
The Center appointed Moïra Truijens as the panelist in this matter on September 10, 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 is Skyscanner Limited, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom. The Complainant is the creator of a travel search and price comparison website hosted at a range of domains in various jurisdictions, including
The Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations worldwide, consisting of or containing the term “skyscanner”, including:
- EU designation of International Registration No. 900393 for SKYSCANNER, registered on March 3, 2006, and protecting, inter alia, “Advertising services provided on the Internet, all relating to travel” in class 35, “Providing access to a search engine relating to travel” in class 38 and “Travel information and arrangement services provided from an Internet website” in class 39;
- EU designation of International Registration No. 1030086 for SKYSCANNER, registered on December 1, 2009, and protecting, inter alia, “Advertising services provided on the Internet, all relating to travel” in class 35, “Travel information and arrangement services provided from an Internet website providing information via means of a global computer network” in class 39 and “Operating of a search engine relating to travel” in class 42;
(hereinafter also referred to as the “Trademark” in singular).
SIDN informed the Center that the Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on September 28, 2008. At the time of filing the Complaint, the website to which the Disputed Domain Name points redirected on rotation to a range of websites, including but not limited to pages containing PPC links, share investment schemes, Google searches and websites that trigger malware warnings. At the time of the Decision, the Disputed Domain Name appeared to be not active.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complaint’s contentions may be summarized as follows.
The Disputed Domain Name is aurally identical and visually highly similar to the Trademark. The only difference between the Disputed Domain Name and the Trademark is that the letter “c” is used instead of the letter “k”, so that the Disputed Domain Name must be a deliberate misspelling of the Trademark.
The term “skyscanner” is not descriptive, nor does it have any dictionary meaning. The Complainant has not given its consent for the Respondent to use deliberate misspellings of its registered trademarks in domain name registrations.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant is globally well-known and received substantive media attention for its services at the beginning of 2008. The Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant and its rights and seeks to mislead consumers by affiliation with or connection to the Trademark.
Moreover, the Respondent has been involved in a previous case in similar circumstances. See Skyscanner Limited v. A. Algozor,WIPO Case No. DNL2020-0008, which resulted in the panel transferring the concerned domain name from the Respondent to the Complainant.
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 Name is 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 to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name; and
c. the Disputed Domain Name has been registered or is 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 fact.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has shown that it has registered rights in the Trademark. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark as it incorporates SKYSCANNER in its entirety, with the exception of the letter “k”, which was substituted by the letter “c”. This misspelling of the Trademark in the Disputed Domain Name does not alter the confusing similarity (see also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9).1
The country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.nl” is typically disregarded under the confusing similarity test, since it is a technical registration requirement (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark and that the Complainant has thus established the first element of article 2.1 of the Regulations.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsUnder article 3.1 of the Regulations, the Complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, upon which the burden of production on this element shifts to the Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1).
The Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
Based on the evidence and the undisputed submissions of the Complainant, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has not received the Complainant’s consent to use the Trademark as part of the Disputed Domain Name, nor has it otherwise been authorized to use the Trademark.
The Respondent has not provided evidence, nor is there any indication in the record of this case that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.
The Respondent did not demonstrate any use or demonstrable preparation to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Finally, in the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name on the part of the Respondent is further supported by the fact that no response was filed by the Respondent.
The Panel concludes that the Complainant has met the second requirement of article 2.1(b) of the Regulations.
C. Registered or Used in Bad FaithIn accordance with article 3.2 of the Regulations, the Complainant has to show that the Disputed Domain Name was registered or is being used in bad faith.
The previous Skyscanner Limited v. A. Algozor,WIPO Case No. DNL2020-0008, concerning the domain name
The Panel in the current proceedings follows this reasoning. Noting also the absence of a Response, there is no other plausible explanation why the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name, other than the Respondent being aware of the Trademark and aiming to capitalize on its reputation. The Panel finds that the facts of the case point to an intent on the part of the Respondent to unfairly profit from the Complainant’s rights in this regard. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
With respect to the use of the Disputed Domain Name, at the time of filing the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Name was resolving a website containing PPC links, share investment schemes, Google searches and websites that trigger malware warnings. This is evidence of bad faith use in accordance with article 3.2(d) of the Regulations.
The fact that the Disputed Domain Name appears not to be active does not prevent a finding of bad faith use. See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Panel concludes that the requirement of article 2.1(c) of the Regulations has also 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 Name
Moïra Truijens
Panelist
Date: September 24, 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).