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

Skyscanner Limited v. Abdelaziz Tamim, SERVEASA

Case No. D2021-0678

1. The Parties

Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Lewis Silkin LLP, United Kingdom.

Respondent is Abdelaziz Tamim, SERVEASA, Egypt.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name<iskyscanner.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“Center”) on March 5, 2021. On March 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 8, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 9, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 9, 2021.

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 (“Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“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 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 1, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 7, 2021.

The Center appointed Debra J. Stanek as the sole panelist in this matter on April 14, 2021. 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 uses the trademark SKYSCANNER in connection with providing travel information and travel arrangement services through a website, providing travel and related information, among other things, as well as travel-related advertising services. Complainant operates a website at <skyscanner.net> and a SKYSCANNER mobile app. Complainant owns several International Trademark Registrations for its SKYSCANNER trademark (Reg. Nos. 900393, 1030086, and 1030086) that include protection in the European Union along with individual countries, and also owns trademark registrations in specific countries, including one in the United Kingdom (Reg. No. 2313916) that was filed in 2002 and registered in 2004.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 28, 2021 and originally resolved to a page that offered travel information for flights, hotel accommodations, and automobile rental.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

1. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant owns a global portfolio of trademark registrations for its SKYSCANNER mark for travel-related advertising, information, and search engine services.

In addition, Complainant operates a website at <skyscanner.net>, which attracts 100 million visits per month. Complainant’s SKYSCANNER mobile app has been downloaded over 70 million times.

The disputed domain name is virtually identical to Complainant’s SKYSCANNER mark; the only difference is that the disputed domain name begins with the letter “i.”

2. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant is not aware that Respondents owns any registered rights in any trademark that comprises any part of the disputed domain name. No other individual or business owns registered trademark rights in the SKYSCANNER mark.

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its SKYSCANNER mark. Further, the term “Skyscanner” is not a descriptive or generic term.

The disputed domain name resolved to a website that displays a tool that a visitor may use to search for and book flights. Because providing travel information and travel services under the term “iskyscanner” is trademark infringement, that use cannot provide Respondent with a “legitimate non-commercial” interest in the disputed domain name or constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.

3. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Respondent registered <iskyscanner.com>on February 28, 2021.

Complainant’s registration for the SKYSCANNER mark dates back to 2002 and has become famous. Therefore, Respondent would have been aware of Complainant and its SKYSCANNER mark when it registered the disputed domain name.

There is no plausible explanation for Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a website that contains a flight aggregator tool – directly competing with the tools offered by Complainant. Respondent is seeking to mislead consumers into believing – incorrectly – that the travel arrangement and information services provided originate or are affiliated with Complainant.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

To prevail, a complainant must prove, as to the disputed domain name, that:

(i) It is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights.

(ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to it.

(iii) It has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A respondent’s failure to respond to a complaint does not automatically result in a finding for the complainant. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3. A complainant has the burden of establishing the required elements. The Panel may, however, draw inferences from a respondent’s default as it considers appropriate. See Rules, paragraph 14(b).

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established its rights in the mark SKYSCANNER by virtue of the evidence of its trademark registrations, including its United Kingdom registration, filed in 2002.

Respondent’s domain name differs only as to the addition of the letter “i” at the beginning of the mark, along with the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain. The disputed domain name is not identical to Complainant’s mark. However, based on a straightforward comparison of the textual components of the mark, the Panel finds that the mark is recognizable in the disputed domain name (excluding the Top-Level Domain). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7 and 1.8. The addition of the letter “i” does not differentiate or distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel shares the consensus view that a complainant may establish that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of a domain name by making a prima facie showing. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1 (once complainant makes a prima facie case, burden of showing rights or legitimate interests in the domain name shifts to respondent).

There is no indication or reason to believe that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

It does not appear that Respondent is making any use of the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering. The disputed domain name appears to have been used to offer travel-related services similar to those offered by Complainant under its SKYSCANNER mark. Given that the term “skyscanner” is not a descriptive or generic term, its inclusion in the disputed domain name appears to be a reference to Complainant.

It does not appear that Respondent’s use is either noncommercial or otherwise a fair use.

The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing under this element. Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing. The Panel concludes that Complainant has established that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

As discussed above, the term “skyscanner” is not generic or descriptive. Complainant’s SKYSCANNER mark predates the registration of the disputed domain name by a number of years, and Complainant’s SKYSCANNER mark and the associated travel-related services, website, and mobile app are well-known. The evidence presented by Complainant suggests Respondent actually knew of Complainant’s mark and travel-related services and adopted and used the disputed domain name on a site offering similar
travel-related services with Complainant’s mark in mind.

It therefore appears that the disputed domain name is being used to attract visitors for commercial gain by confusing them into believing that they are accessing a site affiliated with Complainant.

In light of these facts and in the absence of any explanation or response from Respondent, the Panel finds that Complainant has established that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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, <iskyscanner.com>, be transferred to Complainant.

Debra J. Stanek
Sole Panelist
Date: April 23, 2021

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/