The Complainant is Amadeus IT Group, S.A. of Madrid, Spain, represented by UBILIBET, Spain.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America (“USA” or “US”) / I S, Internet Consulting Services Inc. of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”).
The disputed domain name <amadeusmsellingplatformconnect.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 8, 2018. On February 9, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 9, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 12, 2018 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 amended Complaint on February 14, 2018.
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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 23, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 15, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 16, 2018.
The Center appointed W. Scott Blackmer as the sole panelist in this matter on March 19, 2018. 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.
The Complainant is a technology company established under Spanish law in 1987, headquartered in Madrid, Spain and publicly traded. The Complainant operates worldwide computer reservations systems for the travel industry, with more than 15,000 employees in over 190 countries.
The Complainant operates several websites, including a global website at “www.amadeus.com”. One of the Complainant’s commercial services is named “Amadeus Selling Platform Connect”, a web-based booking and fulfillment service for travel agents. The Panel notes that the Complainant advertises this service on its global website and linked social media pages, on Youtube, and in a brochure designed to be distributed to travel agencies.
The Complainant holds several AMADEUS trademark registrations, including the following:
|
TRADEMARK |
JURISDICTION |
REGISTRATION NUMBER |
REGISTRATION DATE |
|
AMADEUS (word) |
International Trademark |
514733 |
August 20, 1987 |
|
AMADEUS (figurative) |
International Trademark |
649703 |
January 30, 1996 |
|
AMADEUS (word) |
International Trademark |
1321806 |
June 22, 2016 |
|
AMADEUS (word) |
European Union Trade Mark |
002069375 |
August 29, 2005 |
|
AMADEUS (word) |
USA Trademark |
1529969 |
March 14, 1989 |
The Complainant’s International Trademarks registered with WIPO under the Madrid Protocol were originally issued by Germany or Spain and then extended to numerous countries.
According to the Registrar, the Domain Name was created on November 6, 2017 and was registered in the name of a domain privacy service. Following the request for registrar verification in this proceeding, the Registrar identified the registrant as “I S” and the registrant’s organization as “Internet Consulting Services Inc.” of Grand Cayman.
The website to which the Domain Name resolved was a landing page with pay-per-click (“PPC”) third-party advertising links, such as one for Amadeus River Cruises (unrelated to the Complainant). At the time of this Decision, the Domain Name resolves to different advertising portals and commercial websites, depending on the browser used, following multiple redirects.
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered AMADEUS mark and that the Respondent has no permission or other legitimate reason to use the mark in the Domain Name.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent must have been aware of the well-known and distinctive AMADEUS mark and used it to mislead Internet users for commercial gain from PPC advertising, an example of “opportunistic bad faith.”
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a disputed domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “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.”
The Complainant holds registered AMADEUS trademarks. The Domain Name incorporates the arbitrary and distinctive AMADEUS mark and adds the meaningless and unpronounceable letter “m” after the mark (which is not enough to avoid confusion) and the words “selling platform connect”. This additional string enhances the confusing similarity, because the Complainant itself offers a service named “Selling Platform Connect”.
The first element of a UDRP complaint “serves essentially as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward visual or aural comparison of the trademark with the alphanumeric string in the domain name”. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Panel concludes under this test that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark for purposes of the first element of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives non-exclusive examples of instances in which the Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, by demonstrating any of the following:
(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights: or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Since a respondent in a UDRP proceeding is in the best position to assert rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, it is well established that after a complainant makes a prima facie case, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
Here, the Complainant demonstrates confusing similarity. The Complainant’s mark is arbitrary, and the string that constitutes the Domain Name is not a natural, generic phrase. The Respondent has not come forward to offer evidence of rights or legitimate interests. No rights or legitimate reasons are apparent in the record.
The Panel concludes that the Complainant prevails on the second element of the Complaint.
The Policy, paragraph 4(b), furnishes a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that “shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”, including the following (in which “you” refers to the registrant of the domain name):
“(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
This example seems to fit the circumstances of this case. The Panel finds it probable that the Respondent was aware of the well-known and distinctive AMADEUS mark, as evidenced by the creation of a domain name combining the mark with the name of one of the Complainant’s commercial services. The Panel also finds that the Respondent acted in bad faith by allowing the Domain Name to be used for third-party PPC advertising. While this might have occurred automatically when the Respondent first registered the Domain Name, as some registrars park undeveloped domain names by directing them to advertising portals, it was the responsibility of the Respondent under the registration agreement to take control of the Domain Name and ensure that it did not continue to be used abusively over time. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.5.
Given the renown of the Complainant’s mark, the Respondent’s choice to combine it with the name of one of the Complainant’s commercial services, and the subsequent use of the Domain Name for PPC advertising, the Panel finds bad faith within the meaning 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 Domain Name, <amadeusmsellingplatformconnect.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.
W. Scott Blackmer
Sole Panelist
Date: March 28, 2018