WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Skyscanner Limited v. Inchilow Artem

Case No. D2021-2993

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Lewis Silkin LLP, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Inchilow Artem, Russian Federation.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <skyscanner.ink> is registered with Nicenic International Group Co., Limited (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 10, 2021. On September 13, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 14, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 28, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 18, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 19, 2021.

The Center appointed Kateryna Oliinyk as the sole panelist in this matter on November 11, 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, Skyscanner Limited, formed in 2003, is a metasearch engine and travel agency based in Edinburgh, Scotland that allows Internet users to research and book travel options for their trips. The Complainant owns a number of national and international trademark registrations for the SKYSCANNER trademark in connection with its services, including International Trademark Registrations No. 0900393, registered on May 17, 2007, and No. 1030086, registered on January 12, 2009. Both International Trademark Registrations have been extended to the European Union and International Trademark Registration No. 1030086 has been extended, inter alia, to Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Belarus, Switzerland, China, Japan, Norway, Russian Federation, Singapore, Turkey, and the Ukraine.

The Complainant owns and operates a website at “www.skyscanner.net” through which consumers can search for and book travel arrangements. The Complainant also offers a SKYSCANNER mobile application through which consumers can likewise search for and make travel arrangements.

The Complainant’s website attracts 100 million visits per month and its SKYSCANNER smart device app has been downloaded over 70 million times. The Complainant’s services are available in over 30 languages and in 70 currencies.

The Complainant employs over 1,000 staff with offices in Barcelona, Beijing, Budapest, Edinburgh, Glasgow, London, Miami, Palo Alto, Shenzhen, Singapore, and Sofia.

The Complainant is the member of the Trip.com Group after its acquisition by the China’s trop travel agency Ctrip.com International Ltd. for USD1.75 billion.

The disputed domain name was created on September 3, 2021, and resolves to the commercial website operating as the platform for the search and booking of flight tickets, with the office of the website operator located in Ryazan, Russian Federation. The operator of the website under the disputed domain name identifies itself as the “skyscanner.ink” service.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that it holds registered trademark right to the SKYSCANNER trademark based on the national and international registrations and further submits that its trademark enjoys a global reputation in its SKYSCANNER trademark.

The Complainant states that previous UDRP panels have held in several previous decisions that the Complainant has exclusive rights in the term SKYSCANNER which enjoyes the global outreach and reputation (see, e.g., Skyscanner Limited v. Basit Ali, WIPO Case No. D2012-1983, according to which “…compelling evidence that its SKYSCANNER trade mark enjoys considerable reputation among potential customers”; Skyscanner Limited v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1244355693 / Mrs. K Ananthan, WIPO Case No. D2019-0988, according to which “[the Complainant] (1) has registered its SkyScanner and SKYSCANNER marks in many countries around the world; (2), transacts an enormous volume of business by reference to those marks; (3) has received considerable publicity by reference to its corporate name over the years… and (5) any use of that name anywhere in the world is likely to be actionable”).

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to the SKYSCANNER trademark, while Top Level Domain (“TLD”) “.ink” should be disregarded as the standard registration requirement.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its SKYSCANNER trademark or to register any domain name that included its SKYSCANNER trademark.

The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent does not own any registered rights in any trademarks which contain part or all of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant further contends that the term “skyscanner” is not descriptive in any way, nor does it have any generic, dictionary meaning.

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers travel arrangement services, in direct competition with the Complainant’s services. The Respondent uses the domain name for financial gain and in a manner that infringes the Complainant’s trademark rights. Such use cannot constitute a legitimate interest or bona fide offering of goods and services.

Given the famous nature of the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark and the fact that no other individual or business owns registered trademark rights in the SKYSCANNER trademark, not only is it likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights prior to registering the disputed domain name, but it is inevitable that such use will result in confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant.

Accordingly, the Complainant finally contends that the disputed domain name was selected, registered, and used by the Respondent in bad faith and not for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any fair use, but rather to mislead Internet users, disrupt the Complainant’s business, and affect the reputation or notoriety of the SKYSCANNER trademark.

Thus, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name has been 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 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “[a] Panel shall 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”.

Considering that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, in order to determine whether the Complainant has met its burden as stated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel bases its Decision on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy and the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Ownership of a nationally or regionally registered trademark serves as prima facie evidence that the Complainant has trademark rights for the purposes of standing to file this Complaint. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1. The Complainant submitted evidence that the SKYSCANNER trademark has been registered internationally with earliest priority dating back to March 3, 2006, in the European Union. Thus, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s rights in the SKYSCANNER trademark have been established pursuant to the first element of the Policy.

The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark as it incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.

The addition of the TLD “.ink” to the disputed domain name is without legal significance for the purpose of assessing confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.

The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP.

Based on the Complainant’s contentions, the Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its SKYSCANNER trademark. Thus no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875).

Based on the case records, the Panel established that the Respondent has not been commonly known by or associated with the disputed domain name, and there is no similarity or association between the name of the Respondent and the disputed domain name, which could demonstrate rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent. (See, e.g., World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe, WIPO Case No. D2008-0642).

The Panel established that disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers travel arrangement services, in direct competition with the Complainant’s services. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark, carrying a high risk of implied affiliation. Thus, it is inevitable that Internet users would be likely to confuse the Respondent’s website as being owned or endorsed by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1

In the Panel’s view, the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent does not constitute either bona fide use or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, as it is clearly used to target the Complainant and trade off the goodwill of the SKYSCANNER trademark.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the necessary elements under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given the reputation of the Complainant and its SKYSCNANNER trademark which was already established by previous UDRP panels, 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. It is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent is trying to exploit the reputation of the Complainant and the SKYSCANNER trademark by registering an identical domain name to attract Internet users to its own commercial website competing with the Complainant's services. 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 <skyscanner.ink> be transferred to the Complainant.

Kateryna Oliinyk
Sole Panelist
Date: November 25, 2021