À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

WestJet Airlines Ltd. v. Taranga Services Pty Ltd

Case No. D2010-1814

1. The Parties

The Complainant is WestJet Airlines Ltd. of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, represented by Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Canada.

The Respondent is Taranga Services Pty Ltd of Wellington, New Zealand.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <wsetjet.com> is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 27, 2010. On October 28, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Moniker Online Services, LLC. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 28, 2010, Moniker Online Services, LLC. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On December 2, 2010 the Complainant, after being requested by the Center, confirmed that a copy of the Complaint had been sent to the Respondent in accordance with paragraph 2(b) of the Rules.

The Center verified that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 3, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 23, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 25, 2010.

The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on December 2, 2010. 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

The Complainant is a leading international airline company. The Complainant flies an average of 420 flights everyday and services Canada, the United States of America, Mexico and the Caribbean. Between 2005 and 2009 alone, the Complainant generated billions in revenue. Its website is located at “www.westjet.com”, which was registered in 1995. The Complainant is the owner of sixteen Canadian trademark registrations utilizing the WESTJET mark. The earliest of the WESTJET marks was registered in 1997.

The <wsetjet.com> domain name was registered on September 26, 2005.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without the permission of the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website displaying links to competitors of the Complainant. The Complainant asserts this use of the disputed domain name put the Respondent in a position to reap a financial benefit. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name constitutes an intentional misspelling of WESTJET. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has a history of unauthorized domain name registrations, and that numerous successful UDRP complaints have been filed against the Respondent.

Further, the Complainant asserts the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant, a competitor of the Respondent. Additionally, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to source or sponsorship.

In sum, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is substantially similar to the Complainant's WESTJET mark, that the Respondent has no rights of legitimate interests in the WESTJET mark or the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy articulates three elements that must be established by a complainant to merit a finding that a respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration and to obtain relief. These elements are that:

(i) The respondent’s 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 domain name; and

(iii) The respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Each of these elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This case presents a classic case of typosquatting. The disputed domain name merely alters the spelling WESTJET by juxtaposition of the "e" and the "s". Thus, a typing error by an Internet user would resolve to Respondent's website. It is a well-established principle that typo squatting constitutes prima facie evidence of confusion. DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2002-0756; Citigroup, Inc v. Party Night Inc., WIPO Case No. D2003-0480; ESPN, Inc. v. XC2, WIPO Case No. D2005-0444; Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Dow Jones, L.P. v. Powerclick, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1259. The Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to WESTJET mark and has met the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has asserted that the Respondent was never licensed or authorized to use the disputed domain name or the WESTJET mark. It is well settled that diverting Internet traffic, by way of typosquatting, to a website offering sponsored links to competitors of a complainant is prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests. ESPN, Inc. v. XC2, supra; MouseSavers, Inc. v. Tsung, WIPO Case No. D2004-1034; Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Seocho, NAF Claim FA149187. The Complainant has thus established a prima facie case, and Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant's assertion in any response. It does not appear that the Respondent has ever been commonly know by the WESTJET mark or "wsetjet" or that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for noncommercial purposes. Indeed the Respondent's website offers competitive services. Complainant has met its burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has thus satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Research In Motion Limited v. International Domain Names Inc./Moniker Privacy Services, WIPO Case No. D2008-0780; B and J García, S.L., Arnedo, Spain v. Gorila, WIPO Case No. D2004-1071; Lowen Corporation d/b/a Lowen Sign Company v. Henry Chan, WIPO Case No. D2004-0430.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

From the evidence presented, it is apparent to the Panel that the registration and use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith. It is well-settled that the practice of typosquatting constitutes evidence of the bad faith registration (ESPN, Inc. v. XC2, supra; Longs Drug Stores Cal., Inc. v. Shep Dog, WIPO Case No. D2004-1069; Lexar Media, Inc. v. Huang, WIPO Case No. D2004-1039; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Longo, WIPO Case No. D2004-0816). While previous conduct is not determinative of the result in this case, it should be noted that the Respondent has engaged in a similar course of conduct with respect to other domain names. Many UDRP complaints have been initiated against the Respondent involving several domain names. In each case, a finding of bad faith was made against the Respondent and the disputed domains names were ordered transferred. Thus is appears that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations with the instant disputed domain name being the latest bad faith registration. Moreover, it is apparent from this record that the goal of the Respondent in registering and using the disputed domain name was to catch unsuspecting Internet users who misspelled WESTJET as "wsetjet" at the Respondent's sites and offer competitive airline services to such misdirected Internet users. An attempt to derive a financial benefit from typosquatting constitutes evidence of bad faith. Expedia, Inc. v. Collazo, WIPO Case No. D2003-0716. The Respondent has established that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and has thus satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <wsetjet.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: December 16, 2010

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