Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom.
Respondent is Metodi Darzev, Tool Domains Ltd, Bulgaria. 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 the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 27, 2020, 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 February 27, 2020, 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 February 27, 2020. 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 March 4, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 24, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 25, 2020. The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on March 31, 2020. 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 Background Complainant is a company organized under the laws of the United Kingdom that is active in the online travel industry. Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registered owner of numerous trademarks worldwide relating to its company name and brand “Skyscanner”, including the following with protection, inter alia, for the territory of the European Union: International trademark (word mark) SKYSCANNER, registration number: 900393, registration date: March 3, 2006, status: active; International trademark (word mark) SKYSCANNER, registration number: 1030086, registration date: December 1, 2009, status: active. Complainant has also demonstrated to own the domain name Respondent, according to the WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, is a resident of Bulgaria who registered the disputed domain name on October 16, 2019. Complainant has provided evidence that, at some point before the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name redirected to a typical pay-per-click (“PPC”) website at “www.sky-scanner.nu” with various hyperlinks related to active third parties’ websites, some of which are Complainant’s direct competitors in the online travel industry. Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that its business and trademark SKYSCANNER enjoy substantial reputation worldwide, with Complainant’s main website attracting 100 million visits per month and Complainant’s SKYSCANNER smart device app been downloaded over 17 million times. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical with Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark as it incorporates the latter in its entirety, the only difference being that the terms “sky” and “scanner” are hyphenated. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Complainant has not given its consent for Respondent to use the SKYSCANNER trademark, either as a domain name or in any other manner, (2) Respondent does not seem to own any registered rights in any trademark which comprises parts or the entirety of the disputed domain name, (3) Respondent is not commonly known as “Skyscanner”, (4) the term “Skyscanner” is neither descriptive in any way, nor does it have any generic or dictionary meaning, and (5) the disputed domain name points to a parking page containing PPC links advertising travel arrangement services provided by Complainant’s competitors. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since (1) it was registered 17 years after Complainant first applied to register its SKYSCANNER trademark, (2) given the global reputation of the SKYSCANNER trademark, following 17 years of aggressive international growth, it must be assumed that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights, and (3) Respondent obviously is engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct as it has lost several UDRP complaints in the last years, where it was found to have acted in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under 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 Similar The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name The disputed domain name incorporates the SKYSCANNER trademark in its entirety, with the only difference being a hyphen between the terms “sky” and “scanner”. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see e.g. PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS Computer Industry (a/k/a EMS),WIPO Case No. D2003-0696). Moreover, it has been held in many UDRP decisions and has become a consensus view among UDRP panelists (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9), that a domain name which consists of a misspelling of the complainant’s trademark (i.e. a typosquatting) is still considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant trademark for purposes of the first element under the UDRP. Accordingly, the insertion of a hyphen between the terms “sky” and “scanner” does not dispel the confusing similarity arising from the incorporation of Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark in the disputed domain name. Finally, UDRP panelists also agree that the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name is generally viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element test (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11). Accordingly, the existence of the country-code TLD (“ccTLD”) “.nu” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Therefore, Complainant has established the first element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The 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 SKYSCANNER 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 “skyscanner” whatsoever. Finally, Respondent has neither used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose. On the contrary, at least at some point before the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a typical PPC website showing a variety of hyperlinks to third parties’ websites, amongst which were direct competitors of Complainant in the online travel industry, for the obvious purpose of generating PPC revenues. Previous UDRP panels agree that using a domain name to host a PPC website does not present a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s trademark or otherwise mislead Internet users (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9). Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in 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 defaulted, Respondent 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 Faith The Panel finally holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith. Redirecting the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark to a typical PPC website which shows a variety of hyperlinks to active third parties’ websites (including even some of Complainant’s direct competitors in the online travel industry) for the purpose of generating PPC revenues, 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 SKYSCANNER trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of this 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 has been a party to a number of UDRP proceedings in the past, all of which concerned domain names under the ccTLD “.nu” and all of which found against Respondent (see, e.g., Natixis v. Metodi Darzev / TOOL DOMAINS LTD,WIPO Case No. DNU2019-0008; Credit Agricole SA v. Metodi Darzev, Tool Domains Ltd,WIPO Case No. DNU2019-0006; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Metodi Darzev, Tool Domains Ltd,WIPO Case No. DNU2019-0004, et. al.). Also, this Panel has noted that Respondent refused to accept delivery of the Written Notice on the Notification of Complaint dated March 4, 2020. These facts taken all together at least throw a light on Respondent’s behavior which supports the Panel’s bad faith finding. Therefore, Complainant has also satisfied the third element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(iii). 7. Decision For 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: April 7, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy