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 RELATED TO THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF THE ADR PROCEEDING

Skyscanner Limited v. Bolognesi Damiano, Aim S.r.l

Case No. DEUL2020-0001

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Bolognesi Damiano, Aim S.r.l. of Italy, internally-represented.

2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar

The disputed domain name is <skyskanner.eu>.

The Registry of the disputed domain name is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”. The Registrar of the disputed domain name is Register S.p.A.

3. Procedural History

The Request to Change the Language of the ADR Proceeding (the “Request”) was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) pursuant to the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”), Paragraph A(3)(b), on May 12, 2020. On May 15, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 19, 2020, the Registry transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details

In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph A(3)(b)(3), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Request, and the proceedings commenced on June 2, 2020. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph A(3)(b)(4), the due date for Response was June 14, 2020. The Respondent submitted its response on June 14, 2020 and accordingly, the Center acknowledged receipt of the Response on June 15, 2020. The Complainant submitted a supplemental filing on June 19, 2020. The Respondent submitted a supplemental filing on June 19, 2020. The Complainant submitted an email communication on June 25, 2020.

The Center appointed Tobias Malte Müller as the sole panelist in this matter on July 8, 2020 in accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph A(3)(b)(4). 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 ADR Rules, Paragraph B(5).

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a company located in the United Kingdom while the Respondent is located in Italy.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 27, 2018 and does not resolve to an active website. It results from the EURid verification that the language of the registration agreement is Italian.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

In accordance with Paragraph A(3)(b)(1)(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Complainant ascertains that the Respondent has working knowledge in English. In support of this allegation, the Complainant puts forward the following circumstances to justify its request for a change of language of this ADR Proceeding from Italian to English : on the one hand side, and as evidence of an adequate knowledge of English on the part of the Respondent, the Complainant refers to the Respondent’s website “https://www.aimconsulting.it/en/” offered in English. On the other hand, the Complainant, for its part, claims that requiring it to translate its complaint into Italian would place a disproportionate burden on it.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not contest these allegations and did not reply to the Complainant’s Request regarding the language. The Respondent submitted two emails in Italian containing some explanations of the reasons why the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with Paragraph A(3)(a) of the ADR Rules, “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the ADR Proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name. In the absence of an agreement between the Parties, the Panel may in its sole discretion, having regard to the circumstances of the ADR Proceeding, decide on the written request of a Complainant that the language of the ADR Proceeding will be different than the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name.”

The Panel has not been made aware of any agreement between the parties pertaining to the language of the proceedings. Furthermore, it is undisputed in the case at hand that the language of the registration agreement is Italian.

In accordance with the general powers attributed to the Panel under Paragraph B(7)(b) and (c) of the ADR Rules, the Panel shall ensure on the one hand side that the Parties are treated fairly and with equality, and shall ensure, on the other hand, that the ADR Proceeding takes place with due expedition. It is recognized that the ADR Rules are considered a variation of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “UDRP”), under which the panels recognize that under certain circumstances the language of proceedings may be different from the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name. Such circumstances include: (i) evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, (ii) the language/script of the domain name particularly where the same as that of the complainant’s mark, (iii) potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the complainant to translate the complaint, (iv) evidence of other respondent-controlled domain names registered, used, or corresponding to a particular language, or (v) other indicia tending to show that it would not be unfair to proceed in a language other than that of the registration agreement (e.g., Sphinx Information Technology Consulting and Software Project GmbH v. Sphinx IT SRL, WIPO Case DEUL2018-0001; also see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5).

In the present case, the Complainant relies on the fact that the Respondent has working knowledge in English. It justifies this allegation by stating that the Respondent’s website is not only in Italian but also in English. Furthermore, its <aimconsulting.it> domain name contains the English words “aimconsulting”. In the light of the above and taking into consideration the following facts, the Panel agrees that the Respondent has sufficient knowledge of English so that proceeding in English is fair and equal:

- the Respondent did not object for English to be the language of the proceedings and did not reply to the Complainant’s Request;
- the Respondent understood the Request and the subsequent submissions in English and was able to substantially reply to these submissions;
- the Respondent’s main website under the domain name <aimconsulting.it> consists of two English terms “aim” and “consulting”;
- the Respondent’s main website is available in English;

The Respondent’s main website uses English slogans and claims (“Technology partner”, “your growth, our aim”, “Smart solutions” etc.) not only in the English language version but also in the Italian language version.
In addition, the Panel accepts that requesting a translation of the Complaint will cause undue delay of these proceedings and therefore be inequitable for both parties and contrary to the obligation to proceed with these ADR Proceedings with due expedition.

Therefore, having regard to the above circumstances, the Panel accepts in its sole discretion that the language of the ADR Proceeding will be English and therefore different than the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph A(3)(b)(6) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that the language of the ADR proceeding shall be English.

This Panel’s decision shall be final and not subject to appeal.

Tobias Malte Müller
Sole Panelist
Date: July 20, 2020

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/