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


easyGroup IP Licensing Limited v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service Inc., Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft / Privacy Protection Service Inc.

Case No. D2014-0387

1. The Parties

Complainant is easyGroup IP Licensing Limited of South Kensington, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Stephenson Harwood, United Kingdom.

Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service Inc. of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft of Kingstown Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <easyjert.com> is registered with PDR 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 March 12, 2014. On March 12, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 13, 2014, 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 March 18, 2014 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 March 26, 2014.

The Center verified that 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 March 28, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 17, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 24, 2014.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on May 2, 2014. 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

EasyJet PIc was established in 1995. It is currently the second largest budget airline in Europe. Complainant owns the registered trademarks used by Easyjet Plc in its business

Complainant owns numerous EASYJET Community trademarks some of which are:

EASYJET Reg. No. 001232909 filed July 1, 1999;

EASYJET.COM Reg. No.001593326 filed on March 31, 2000; and

EASYJET.COM and Design Reg. No.001984079 filed on November 22, 2000.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 11, 2005.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges that it has trademark rights in the EASYJET mark as evidenced by it numerous registrations, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark, and that the misspelling of the disputed domain name could be a result of a typographical error.

Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent has not provided evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Specifically, the site includes click through links that link to competitors, most notably Ryanair, Complainant’s main competitor.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Given Complainant’s trademark registrations the Panel finds that Complainant has trademark rights in the EASYJET mark. The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is nearly identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s EASYJET mark since it incorporates Complainant’s entire registered trademark with the addition of the extra letter “R” which is manifest intentional typosquatting.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

A complainant need only make a prima facie showing on this element, at which point the burden shifts to respondent to present evidence that it has some rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1. The ultimate burden of proof, however, remains with complainant. Id. Vicar Operating, Inc. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Eklin Bot Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2010-1141.

The Panel finds that the above contentions establish a prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Moreover, Respondent has not rebutted such a prima facie showing and therefore Complainant has succeeded with respect to this Policy element.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent likely knew of Complainant’s rights when it registered the disputed domain name in 2005. The Panel also finds bad faith use. Respondent’s flagrant typosquatting is evidence of both bad faith registration and use, namely of an intentional effort to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion. Funix B.V. v. Domain Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2009-1048. It is also bad faith use to include sponsored advertisements linking to competitors.

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 <easyjert.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: May 18, 2014