Westmore · UDRP DecisionSkysccanner.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <skysccanner.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKYSCANNER mark because it was an intentional misspelling created by adding a second letter “c”. Respondent failed to rebut Complainant’s prima facie showing that it lacked rights or legitimate interests, and redirecting the domain to Complainant’s own website did not establish such rights. The Panel also found bad-faith registration and use because Respondent was highly unlikely to have been unaware of Complainant’s mark and because the redirect supported an inference of intentional confusion for commercial gain and/or disruption of Complainant’s business.
The timeline behind skysccanner.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
This decision illustrates that redirecting a typo domain to the trademark owner’s official website does not necessarily establish benign use. Here, the redirect was treated as evidence against both rights or legitimate interests and good-faith use, particularly when combined with an intentional misspelling, prior trademark rights, the mark’s fame, and Respondent’s failure to offer an explanation.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
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
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around skysccanner.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.