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. Qin Xian Sheng

Case No. D2021-2623

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by Lewis Silkin LLP, UK.

The Respondent is Qin Xian Sheng, Singapore.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <skyscannernet.com> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 11, 2021. On August 12, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 13, 2021, 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 the Complainant on August 16, 2021, 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 16, 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 (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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 13, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 15, 2021.

The Center appointed Linda Chang as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 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

The Complainant is a UK company founded in 2003 and operates online travel search websites including “www.skyscanner.com” and “www.skyscanner.net”, through which consumers can search for flight, hotel, and car hire.

The Complainant is the owner of the International Trademark Registration for SKYSCANNER No. 1030086 registered on December 1, 2009, designating inter alia Singapore.

According to the information disclosed by the Registrar, the Respondent is Qin Xian Sheng, Singapore.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 22, 2021 and resolves to a website providing sports gambling services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to the SKYSCANNER trademark with the only difference being the addition of the term “net”.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant finally contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel holds that “.com” being the generic Top-Level Domain could be ignored for the purpose of assessing identity and confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

The most recognizable part of the disputed domain name “skyscannernet” reproduces the SKYSCANNER trademark, and the addition of “net” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark. The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SKYSCANNER trademark.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainant.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

According to the Complainant, the Respondent was not given any consent by the Complainant to use the SKYSCANNER trademark in the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name resolves to a sports gambling website. The Panel views that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name cannot be considered as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use nor is the Respondent using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

For all the foregoing reasons, and in light of the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainant.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given the reputation of the Complainant, the Panel assumes that the Respondent must have knowledge of the Complainant and the SKYSCNANNER trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. It is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent is trying to exploit the reputation of the Complainant and the SKYSCANNER trademark by registering a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its own online sports gambling website. The Panel concludes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

In absence of counter claims from the Respondent, the Panel is convinced that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent is seeking to capitalize on the reputation of the SKYSCANNER trademark to drive traffic to the disputed domain name for commercial gain. The Respondent is intentionally attempting to create confusion among Internet users and attract them to its own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the SKYSCANNER trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainant.

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 <skyscannernet.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Linda Chang
Sole Panelist
Date: October 15, 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/