Westmore · UDRP DecisionQantaslink.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <qantaslink.com>. It found the domain identical to Complainant’s registered QANTASLINK mark, found no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent was unauthorized, was not commonly known by the name, and used the domain to redirect to a sale page, and found bad-faith registration and use because Respondent knew of the distinctive mark and offered the domain for USD 3,888 based on its trademark value. Respondent’s late offer to give the domain back did not cure the bad faith.
The timeline behind qantaslink.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind qantaslink.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward identical-mark sale-offer case in which a distinctive trademark was registered verbatim as a domain and offered for an elevated price. It also shows that a respondent’s post-default willingness to transfer does not necessarily eliminate the need for findings or cure bad faith when the complainant elects to proceed.
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 Qantas Airways Limited v. Quality Ads Case No. D2019-2294 1. The Parties Complainant is Qantas Airways Limited, Australia, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is Quality Ads, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <qantaslink.com> is registered with Rebel Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 20, 2019. On September 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 20, 2019, 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 Complainant on September 23, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 25, 2019. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 September 25, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 15, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 16, 2019. The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on October 22, 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. On October 23, 2019, an email communication was received from Respondent, which was brought to the Panel’s attention on the same day. On October 29, 2019, a Panel order was issued to the Parties. 4. Factual Background Founded in 1920, Complainant is a large domestic and international airline based in Queensland, Australia. In 2018, Complainant provided flights to over 55 million passengers. Complainant owns an Australian trademark registration for QANTASLINK, which it registered on June 24, 2003, registration no. 870169. In addition, Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for QANTAS, including a United States of America registration, registration no. 1178528, which it registered on November 17, 1981. Complainant has received numerous awards and substantial recognition from consumers and the media. For instance, from 2003 to 2007, Complainant was named “Australasia’s Leading Airline.” Additionally, Complainant’s website, located at the domain name <qantas.com>, is visited by millions of consumers each year. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 10, 2017. The website associated with the disputed domain name redirects to a webpage offering the disputed domain name for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s QANTASLINK mark. Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because the disputed domain name redirects to a third-party website offering the disputed domain name for sale for a price exceeding Respondent’s registration expenses. Complainant also asserts that Respondent is not sponsored or affiliated with Complainant, nor has Complainant licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register the disputed domain name. According to Complainant, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name which also evinces Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests. As for Respondent’s bad faith, Complainant alleges that Respondent’s registration of a domain name identical to Complainant’s QANTASLINK mark demonstrates Respondent’s knowledge and familiarity with Complainant’s brand. According to Complainant, there is no plausible reason for Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name in good faith. Additionally, Complainant believes Respondent has engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting and currently owns several registrations that misappropriate well-known trademarks, which further supports a finding of bad faith. Complainant contends that Respondent is offering to sell the disputed domain name for a fee of USD 3,888, a fee Complainant believes far exceeds the costs Respondent incurred in registering the disputed domain name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Preliminary Information On October 23, 2019, Respondent sent the Center an email stating “This fell through our email, we are will [sic] to give the domain back so you can save some $. Please excuse our mistake.” On October 29, 2019, the Panel subsequently issued a Panel Order suspending the proceedings for 14 days to allow time for Complainant and Respondent to seek a settlement agreement. Complainant advised the Center on October 31, 2019 that it wished to proceed with the dispute. On November 1, 2019, Complainant informed the Center that no communications were made between Complainant and Respondent regarding Respondent’s offer to transfer the disputed domain name. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights by way of its Australian trademark registration no. 870169 for the QANTASLINK mark. The disputed domain name is identical to this mark. Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has presented a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which Respondent did not rebut. Complainant has not consented to or authorized Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. Nothing in the factual record suggests that Respondent is commonly known as “Qantaslink.” Moreover, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet visitors to a webpage offering the disputed domain name for sale (at a price in excess of the likely cost of registration) is not a legitimate or bona fide use. See Cofra Holdings AG v. Mr Obada Alzatari , WIPO Case No. D2014-1709 . Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent does not offer, and the Panel is not aware of, any meaning or significance of the term “qantaslink” other than as a reference to Complainant’s mark. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent probably knew (indeed, indisputably knew) when it registered the disputed domain name that it was identical to Complainant’s mark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.2.2 (panels may infer actual knowledge of a complainant’s mark where the respondent has no credible claim to have been unaware of complainant’s mark). The Panel also finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect to a webpage offering to sell the disputed domain name for USD 3,888 is evidence of bad faith use. See Viceroy Cayman Ltd. v. Anthony Syrowatka , WIPO Case No. D2011-2118 . The disputed domain name has no apparent value other than the value based on Complainant’s mark. It is bad faith use to request an elevated payment for transfer of a domain name where the only basis for demand is the value of the term as a trademark owned by Complainant. Respondent’s offer to “give the domain name back” to save Complainant money does not cure Respondent’s bad faith. 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 <qantaslink.com> be transferred to Complainant. Lawrence K. Nodine Sole Panelist Date: November 12, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around qantaslink.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
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.