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. Internet Consulting Services Inc.

Case No. D2019-2609

1. The Parties

Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom.

Respondent is Internet Consulting Services Inc., Cayman Islands, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <skysscaner.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 24, 2019. On October 24, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 25, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 29, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 18, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 19, 2019.

The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on November 27, 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.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the mark SKYSCANNER in connection with advertising services provided via the Internet, opinion polling, data processing, provision of business information, business information services, namely data feeds, auctioneering, all related to travel. Complainant’s trademark registrations include the following:

International Trademark Registration No. 900393 (designating the European Union (EU)), registered March 3, 2006;
International Trademark Registration No. 1030086 (designating the EU; Armenia; Australia; Azerbaijan; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Belarus; Switzerland; China; Japan; Norway; Russian Federation (the); Singapore; Turkey and Ukraine, registered December 1, 2009;
International Trademark Registration No. 1133058 (designating the United States of America), registered August 16, 2012;
Indian Trademark Registration No. 1890840, registered December 2, 2009;
United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. 2313916, registered April 30, 2004;
Canadian Trademark Registration No. TMA786689, registered January 10, 2011; and

New Zealand Trademark Registration No. 816550, registered October 7, 2010

Complainant contends that Complainant’s website at <skyscanner.com> attracts over 100 million visits per month and has been downloaded over 70 million times. Complainant’s services are available in over thirty languages and in seventy currencies.

Complainant’s mark enjoyed significant international media exposure in November 2016, after Complainant was acquired by Ctrip, China’s largest online travel agency in a deal valued at USD 1.7 billion.

The disputed domain name <skysscaner.com>, created on June 18, 2018, differs from Complainant’s mark by adding the letter “s” and omitting a letter “n”.

Respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale at Afternic.com for a minimum offer of USD 799. Respondent has been identified in four adverse UDRP decisions in the last two years.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide a complaint “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has demonstrated that it has strong rights in the trademark SKYSCANNER in connection with advertising services, business and online services related to travel. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety with the only differences being the addition of a letter “s” and the omission of a letter “n”. These slight differences, a form of typosquatting involving a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of Complainant’s mark, do not prevent the trademark from being recognizable within the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant contends that Respondent does not own any registered rights in any trademarks which comprise part or all of the disputed domain name and that the term “Skyscanner” is not descriptive in any way, nor does it have any generic dictionary meaning. Complainant has not given its consent for the Respondent to use its registered trademarks in a domain name registration. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known as “Skycanner” or “Skysscaner”. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name to host an active website. Rather, the disputed domain name points to a parking page containing pay-per-click links advertising travel arrangement services, some of which originate from the Complainant’s competitors. There is no evidence that Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The record indicates that it is highly likely that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights prior to registering the disputed domain name.

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The record indicates that Complainant’s SKYSCANNER mark is widely known. It is not plausible that Respondent innocently registered the disputed domain name without being aware of Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s mark can also be inferred from Respondent’s linking of the disputed domain name to a website offering links to travel related services similar to those of Complainant.

Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its trademarks by registering the disputed domain name that incorporates a misspelled version of Complainant’s trademark, which demonstrates that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to confuse Internet users looking for Complainant’s services and to mislead Internet users as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain name.

There is no evidence in the record indicating a plausible good faith reason for Respondent to have registered or used the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used 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 <skysscaner.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: December 11, 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/