About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Qantas Airways Limited v. Quality Ads

Case No. D2019-2294

1. The Parties

Complainant is Qantas Airways Limited, Australia, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

Respondent is Quality Ads, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <qantaslink.com> is registered with Rebel Ltd (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 20, 2019. On September 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 20, 2019, 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 September 23, 2019, 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 September 25, 2019.

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 September 25, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 15, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 16, 2019.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on October 22, 2019. 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.

On October 23, 2019, an email communication was received from Respondent, which was brought to the Panel’s attention on the same day. On October 29, 2019, a Panel order was issued to the Parties.

4. Factual Background

Founded in 1920, Complainant is a large domestic and international airline based in Queensland, Australia. In 2018, Complainant provided flights to over 55 million passengers. Complainant owns an Australian trademark registration for QANTASLINK, which it registered on June 24, 2003, registration no. 870169. In addition, Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for QANTAS, including a United States of America registration, registration no. 1178528, which it registered on November 17, 1981. Complainant has received numerous awards and substantial recognition from consumers and the media. For instance, from 2003 to 2007, Complainant was named “Australasia’s Leading Airline.” Additionally, Complainant’s website, located at the domain name <qantas.com>, is visited by millions of consumers each year.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 10, 2017. The website associated with the disputed domain name redirects to a webpage offering the disputed domain name for sale.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s QANTASLINK mark.

Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because the disputed domain name redirects to a third-party website offering the disputed domain name for sale for a price exceeding Respondent’s registration expenses. Complainant also asserts that Respondent is not sponsored or affiliated with Complainant, nor has Complainant licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register the disputed domain name. According to Complainant, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name which also evinces Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests.

As for Respondent’s bad faith, Complainant alleges that Respondent’s registration of a domain name identical to Complainant’s QANTASLINK mark demonstrates Respondent’s knowledge and familiarity with Complainant’s brand. According to Complainant, there is no plausible reason for Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name in good faith. Additionally, Complainant believes Respondent has engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting and currently owns several registrations that misappropriate well-known trademarks, which further supports a finding of bad faith. Complainant contends that Respondent is offering to sell the disputed domain name for a fee of USD 3,888, a fee Complainant believes far exceeds the costs Respondent incurred in registering the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Preliminary Information

On October 23, 2019, Respondent sent the Center an email stating “This fell through our email, we are will [sic] to give the domain back so you can save some $. Please excuse our mistake.” On October 29, 2019, the Panel subsequently issued a Panel Order suspending the proceedings for 14 days to allow time for Complainant and Respondent to seek a settlement agreement. Complainant advised the Center on October 31, 2019 that it wished to proceed with the dispute. On November 1, 2019, Complainant informed the Center that no communications were made between Complainant and Respondent regarding Respondent’s offer to transfer the disputed domain name.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights by way of its Australian trademark registration no. 870169 for the QANTASLINK mark. The disputed domain name is identical to this mark.

Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has presented a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which Respondent did not rebut. Complainant has not consented to or authorized Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. Nothing in the factual record suggests that Respondent is commonly known as “Qantaslink.” Moreover, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet visitors to a webpage offering the disputed domain name for sale (at a price in excess of the likely cost of registration) is not a legitimate or bona fide use. See Cofra Holdings AG v. Mr Obada Alzatari, WIPO Case No. D2014-1709.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent does not offer, and the Panel is not aware of, any meaning or significance of the term “qantaslink” other than as a reference to Complainant’s mark. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent probably knew (indeed, indisputably knew) when it registered the disputed domain name that it was identical to Complainant’s mark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.2.2 (panels may infer actual knowledge of a complainant’s mark where the respondent has no credible claim to have been unaware of complainant’s mark).

The Panel also finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect to a webpage offering to sell the disputed domain name for USD 3,888 is evidence of bad faith use. See Viceroy Cayman Ltd. v. Anthony Syrowatka, WIPO Case No. D2011-2118. The disputed domain name has no apparent value other than the value based on Complainant’s mark. It is bad faith use to request an elevated payment for transfer of a domain name where the only basis for demand is the value of the term as a trademark owned by Complainant. Respondent’s offer to “give the domain name back” to save Complainant money does not cure Respondent’s bad faith.

Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <qantaslink.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: November 12, 2019

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/