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

MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Raj Kumar / PrivacyProtect.org

Case No. D2012-0691

1. The Parties

The Complainant is MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. of Haryana, India, represented by Mohan Associates, India.

The Respondent is Raj Kumar of Mumbai, India / PrivacyProtect.org of Nobby Beach, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <makemy-trip.com> is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 2, 2012. On April 3, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 4, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response 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 April 5, 2012, 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 April 10, 2012.

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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 13, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 3, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 4, 2012.

The Center appointed Amarjit Singh as the sole panelist in this matter on May 16, 2012. 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 online travel company that was founded in the year 2000 to empower the Indian traveler with instant booking and comprehensive choices, the company began its journey in the United States of America-India travel market. It aimed to offer a range of best-value products and services along with cutting-edge technology and dedicated round-the-clock customer support.

The Complainant commenced operations in 2000 and in the first five years following its inception, the Complainant focused on the non-resident Indian market in the United States, servicing mainly their need for United States-India inbound air tickets.

The Complainant has designed its websites to provide its customers with a user-friendly experience. According to comScore, “www.makemytrip.com” was the second most visited travel website in India.

The Complainant currently operate the websites “www.makemytrip.com” (including the sub-domain “us.makemytrip.com”) and “www.makemytrip.ae”, servicing the Indian domestic and outbound market, the United States-India inbound market (focusing in particular on non-resident Indians in the United States) and the United Arab Emirates as well as neighboring Middle East countries, respectively.

The Complainant has also registered various domain names, including the following:

i. <Makemytrip.com>

ii. <Makemytrip.net>

iii. <Makemytrip.org>

iv. <Makemytrip.co.uk>

v. <Makemytrip.co.in>

vi. <Makemy-trip.net.in>

vii. <Makemy-trip.co.in>

viii. <Makemy-trip.in>

The Complainant holds the registration of the mark MAKEMYTRIP in international class 39 in India vide registration No. 1447892 dated April 25, 2006.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 14, 2010.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name <makemy-trip.com> essentially capitalizes on the use of the trademark, trade name, corporate name and domain names of the Complainant. The Complainant is globally recognized and is a global player, the use of such a misleading term only adds to the confusion in the minds of Internet users that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant.

The act of the Respondent is registering a domain name comprising of the Complainant’s well-known trademark / service mark in its entirety and in a manner clearly intended to cause confusion / deception as to the source / origin of such domain name.

The trademarks have attained widespread fame and recognition not only in India but also in several countries in Europe and Asia and in the United States. In the disputed domain name, the Respondent has used the word “makemytrip” to falsely indicate that it has a trade nexus with the Complainant, whereas, in fact, the Respondent has no such relationship with the Complainant. The Complainant has not authorized or licensed the use of its trademark to the Respondent.

The Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a website that attempts to replicate the “look and feel” of the Complainant’s website and offers links to (services of) competitors of the Complainant. The intention of the Respondent is to capitalize on the Complainant’s well-known mark, and to mislead Internet users searching for the same.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the mark MAKEMYTRIP under international class 39 in India and also claims to have used the mark in different parts of the world including as part of its corporate name and its domain name <makemytrip.com>.

The Respondent has not responded to the claims of the Complainant. In the absence of any denial on the part of the Respondent, and on the basis of the Registration Certificates for the MAKEMYTRIP trademark in India as provided by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the MAKEMYTRIP mark and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark (also considering that the hyphen is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark).

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant is successful in proving the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorized or licensed the use of its trademark to the Respondent. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not disputed the claim of the Complainant, and the Panel has not found any rights or legitimate interests in the record. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the following circumstance, if found by the panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

“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.”

In this case the disputed domain name resolves to a website that attempts to replicate the “look and feel” of the Complainant’s website and offers links to (services of) competitors of the Complainant. Considering also the notoriety of the Complainant and its trademark, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.

It is pertinent to note that the Written Notice sent by the Center to the Respondent was not delivered due to the non-availability of correct addresses in the WhoIs record of the Registrar. The Panel finds that this is further evidence of bad faith on part of the Respondent.

In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy therefore has been fulfilled.

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 <makemy-trip.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Amarjit Singh
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 26, 2012

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/