The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
The disputed domain name <skyscannert.net> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 21, 2020. On February 24, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 24, 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 the Complainant on February 25, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 25, 2020.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 28, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 19, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 30, 2020.
The Center appointed Martin Michaus Romero as the sole panelist in this matter on April 14, 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.
1) The Complainant is a leading global air ticketing specialist. Award leader online travel agency who provides customers with expertise in traveling strategies.
2) The Complainant’s website “www.skyscanner.net” attracts 100 million visits per month and, to date, its “skyscanner” smart device app has been downloaded over 70 million times. The Complainant’s services are available in over 30 languages and in 70 currencies.
3) The Complainant owns 91 trademark registrations containing the term “skyscanner”. Some of the most relevant for this matter are:
a. International Trademark Registration No. 900393 for SKYSCANNER (registered on March 3, 2006, in International Classes 35, 38, and 39)
b. International Trademark Registration No. 1030086 for SKYSCANNER (registered on December 1, 2009 in International Classes 35, 39, and 42)
c. International Trademark Registration No. 1133058 for SKYSCANNER & Cloud Device
d. Indian Trademark Registration No. 1890840 for SKYSCANNER
e. Indian Trademark Application No. 2287020 for SKYSCANNER & Cloud Device
f. United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. 2313916 for SKYSCANNER
g. Canadian Trademark Registration No. TMA786689 for SKYSCANNER
h. New Zealand Trademark Registration No. 816550 for SKYSCANNER
4) The Complainant’s registered rights date back to 2002 and enjoyed a great deal of exposure in the international media. In November 2016, the Complainant was acquired by Ctrip, ony of China’s largest online travel agencies in a deal worth approximately GBP 1.4 billion. A collection of press releases from various international media outlets relating to the acquisition informed of the transaction.
5) As of November 12, 2019, the Complainant’s website “www.skyscanner.net” was ranked 1,671st globally for Internet traffic and engagement and the 107th in the United Kingdom.
6) The disputed domain name <skyscannert.net> was registered on January 21, 2019 and resolves to a parking page containing pay-per-click (“PPC”) links.
The Complainant states in its Complaint that the Respondent:
1) Registered the disputed domain name <skyscannert.net> which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark SKYSCANNER without the Complainant’s knowledge or authorization.
2) Registered the disputed domain name <skyscannert.net> which included the SKYSCANNER trademark, to create confusion in Internet consumers, that the disputed domain name is affiliated with the Complainant.
3) Has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
4) Likely intended to confuse the Complainant’s customers or potential customers, considering the complete reproduction of the SKYSCANNER trademark in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name was selected, registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith and not for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any fair use, but rather to mislead Internet users, disrupt the Complainant’s business, and affect the reputation or notoriety of the SKYSCANNER trademark.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.
Considering that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, in order to determine whether the Complainant has met its burden as stated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel bases its Decision on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy and the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the 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.
The Complainant has submitted evidence of its rights in the SKYSCANNER trademark. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark. The disputed domain name <skyscannert.net> reproduces the Complainant’s trademark SKYSCANNER in its entirety, with the addition of a letter “t” at the end. This is a clear example of typosquatting.
The SKYSCANNER trademark is included in the disputed domain name, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix,”.net”, as well as the addition of the letter “t”, do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the SKYSCANNER trademark.
The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The Respondent has not received permission or authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent did not substantively reply to the Complainant’s contentions, and therefore has not provided any evidence to demonstrate anything to the contrary. It should be pointed out that nothing in the available record indicates that the Respondent is an individual, business, or corporation known by the name “skyscanner”. Furthermore, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate or noncommercial fair use that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or owned a trademark or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, it is clear to the Panel that the registration and the use of the disputed domain name has been in bad faith, by including a typosquatted version of the SKYSCANNER trademark, to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain. The inclusion of the gTLD “.net” in the <skyscannert.net> disputed domain name attempts to deceive or lead Internet users to believe that the disputed domain name is operated by the Complainant, as it is almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name <skyscanner.net>, which resolves to its official website.
The Respondent has demonstrated, by registering the disputed domain name, which reproduces the Complainant’s mark with a small typo, an intent to capitalize on the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark. These activities constitute, in view of the Panel, clear evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page containing PPC links to a competitor of the Complainant. The Respondent seeks to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and/or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. This also negatively affects the Complainant’s online presence and disrupts the Complainant’s business. See paragraphs 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(iii) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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 <skyscannert.net> be transferred to the Complainant.
Martin Michaus Romero
Sole Panelist
Date: April 27, 2020