WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Skyscanner Limited v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp.

Case No. D2019-0507

1. The Parties

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

Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., of Nassau, Bahamas.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <skysccanner.com> is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 5, 2019. On March 5, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 6, 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 March 7, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 27, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 28, 2019.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on April 8, 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

Since 2002, Complainant has used the mark SKYSCANNER in connection with its travel information and arrangement products and services (e.g. United Kingdom registration no. 2313916, filed on October 23, 2002, and registered on April 30, 2004). Complainant provides its services through the website associated with its <www.skyscanner.net> domain name, which receives around eighty million visits per month. In addition, Complainant owns a smart device application, “Skyscanner”, which has been downloaded over seventy million times. Over the years, Complainant has received considerable media attention in various countries. Complainant now owns ninety-one trademark registrations containing the term SKYSCANNER, including three international trademark registrations for SKYSCANNER (International Registration Nos. 1,030,086, registered on December 1, 2009; 900,393, registered on May 15, 2007; and, 1,133,058, registered on August 16, 2012).

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 20, 2006. The disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its SKYSCANNER mark. According to Complainant, the additional letter “c” is insufficient to render confusion unlikely.

Complainant also asserts that Respondent has no trademark rights in SKYSCANNER or SKYSCCANNER. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark.

Further, Complainant contends that Respondent has consciously targeted Complainant. Complainant submits that Respondent acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name to Complainant or one of Complainant’s competitors. According to Complainant, this amounts to bad faith use and registration.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the SKYSCANNER mark by virtue of its international registrations. The disputed domain name consists of a misspelling of the SKYSCANNER mark. A domain name which consists of an intentionally misspelling of a trademark is considered confusingly similar to the trademark. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9. Given the fame of the SKYSCANNER mark, it is more likely than not that Respondent intentionally misspelled the mark in the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.

Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has presented a prima facie case for Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has failed to rebut. Respondent use of the disputed domain name to redirect to Complainant’s website is not evidence of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests. FXCM Global Services LLC v. WhoisGuard Protected, Whoisguard Inc. / Jenny Sohia, WIPO Case No. D2018-1111.

Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. It is highly unlikely that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and Complainant’s rights in its SKYSCANNER mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Additionally, a respondent’s redirecting of a disputed domain name to a complainant’s website evidences bad faith use. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Thus, the record supports the finding that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and/or disrupt Complainant’s business.

Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <skysccanner.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: April 22, 2019