Westmore · UDRP DecisionSkysscaner.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <skysscaner.com> after finding all three UDRP elements satisfied. The domain was a misspelled version of the widely known SKYSCANNER mark and resolved to a parking page with pay-per-click links for travel-related services, including services associated with the Complainant's competitors. The Panel found no evidence of rights or legitimate interests and concluded that the Respondent had targeted the Complainant's mark to create confusion for commercial purposes.
The timeline behind skysscaner.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 skysscaner.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates a straightforward typosquatting pattern in which a recognizable misspelling of a widely known mark was paired with industry-related pay-per-click advertising. The Panel's bad-faith analysis rested principally on the mark's recognition, the nature of the misspelling, and the travel-related links that showed targeting.
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. Internet Consulting Services Inc. Case No. D2019-2609 1. The Parties Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom. Respondent is Internet Consulting Services Inc., Cayman Islands, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <skysscaner.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 24, 2019. On October 24, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 25, 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 October 29, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 18, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 19, 2019. The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on November 27, 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 Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the mark SKYSCANNER in connection with advertising services provided via the Internet, opinion polling, data processing, provision of business information, business information services, namely data feeds, auctioneering, all related to travel. Complainant’s trademark registrations include the following: International Trademark Registration No. 900393 (designating the European Union (EU)), registered March 3, 2006; International Trademark Registration No. 1030086 (designating the EU; Armenia; Australia; Azerbaijan; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Belarus; Switzerland; China; Japan; Norway; Russian Federation (the); Singapore; Turkey and Ukraine, registered December 1, 2009; International Trademark Registration No. 1133058 (designating the United States of America), registered August 16, 2012; Indian Trademark Registration No. 1890840, registered December 2, 2009; United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. 2313916, registered April 30, 2004; Canadian Trademark Registration No. TMA786689, registered January 10, 2011; and New Zealand Trademark Registration No. 816550, registered October 7, 2010 Complainant contends that Complainant’s website at <skyscanner.com> attracts over 100 million visits per month and has been downloaded over 70 million times. Complainant’s services are available in over thirty languages and in seventy currencies. Complainant’s mark enjoyed significant international media exposure in November 2016, after Complainant was acquired by Ctrip, China’s largest online travel agency in a deal valued at USD 1.7 billion. The disputed domain name <skysscaner.com>, created on June 18, 2018, differs from Complainant’s mark by adding the letter “s” and omitting a letter “n”. Respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale at Afternic.com for a minimum offer of USD 799. Respondent has been identified in four adverse UDRP decisions in the last two years. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to 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”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has demonstrated that it has strong rights in the trademark SKYSCANNER in connection with advertising services, business and online services related to travel. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety with the only differences being the addition of a letter “s” and the omission of a letter “n”. These slight differences, a form of typosquatting involving a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of Complainant’s mark, do not prevent the trademark from being recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent does not own any registered rights in any trademarks which comprise part or all of the disputed domain name and that the term “Skyscanner” is not descriptive in any way, nor does it have any generic dictionary meaning. Complainant has not given its consent for the Respondent to use its registered trademarks in a domain name registration. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known as “Skycanner” or “Skysscaner”. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name to host an active website. Rather, the disputed domain name points to a parking page containing pay-per-click links advertising travel arrangement services, some of which originate from the Complainant’s competitors. There is no evidence that Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The record indicates that it is highly likely that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights prior to registering the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The record indicates that Complainant’s SKYSCANNER mark is widely known. It is not plausible that Respondent innocently registered the disputed domain name without being aware of Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s mark can also be inferred from Respondent’s linking of the disputed domain name to a website offering links to travel related services similar to those of Complainant. Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its trademarks by registering the disputed domain name that incorporates a misspelled version of Complainant’s trademark, which demonstrates that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to confuse Internet users looking for Complainant’s services and to mislead Internet users as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence in the record indicating a plausible good faith reason for Respondent to have registered or used the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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 <skysscaner.com> be transferred to Complainant. Lynda J. Zadra-Symes Sole Panelist Date: December 11, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around skysscaner.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.