Westmore · UDRP DecisionSskyscanner.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <sskyscanner.com>. It found the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark because it incorporated the mark in full with an additional initial “s”. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because it had no authorization and used the Domain Name to redirect to a website offering travel arrangement and tour operating services. Bad faith was established from the earlier trademark rights, the deliberate typographical variation, the travel-related redirection, and the Respondent’s involvement in numerous recent UDRP proceedings.
The timeline behind sskyscanner.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 sskyscanner.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates a straightforward typosquatting pattern in which a single letter is added to a well-established mark and the resulting domain redirects to services in the same commercial field. The related travel content, earlier trademark rights, lack of authorization, default, and history of numerous UDRP proceedings collectively supported transfer.
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. D2019-2881 1. The Parties The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Keltie LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp, Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <sskyscanner.com> (the “Domain Name”) 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 November 22, 2019. On November 22, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 25, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 27, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 17, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 18, 2019. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on December 19, 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 The Complainant is an online travel company with a website available in over 30 languages and used by 100 million people per month. The Complainant’s SKYSCANNER smart device app has been downloaded over 70 million times. The Complainant owns rights in the trademark SKYSCANNER, such as International Trade mark, Registration Nos. 900393 (registered on March 3, 2006), 1030086 (registered on December 1, 2009), and 1133058 (registered on August 16, 2012). The Respondent registered the Domain Name on June 20, 2014. The Domain Name automatically redirects to a website that offers travel arrangement services and tour operating services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant has documented trademark registrations in the trademark SKYSCANNER. According to the Complainant, the Domain Name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The Domain Name takes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with only one small difference: the Domain Name adds the letter “s” at the beginning of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. To the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent does not own any rights in any trademarks which comprise part or the entirety of the Domain Name, nor is the Respondent commonly known under this name. The Complainant has not given its consent for the Respondent to use its registered trademark in any manner. Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith as the Respondent’s interest cannot be legitimate nor is there a bona fide use. The Domain Name redirects to a website that offers travel arrangement services and tour operating services, specifically tours in Edinburgh, United Kingdom where the Complainant’s primary place of business is located. The Respondent’s use is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Given the fame of the Complainant’s trademark, it is likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights prior to acquiring or registering the Domain Name. The Domain Name is a deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark through a common typographical error by users of QWERTY keyboards. Moreover, the Respondent has been identified as the respondent in 157 UDRP decisions in the last three years, the vast majority of which resulted in a finding of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the trademark SKYSCANNER. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the letter “s” in front of the trademark. The addition of such a letter does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent. The Domain Name redirects to a website that offers travel arrangement services and tour operating services, specifically tours in Edinburgh, United Kingdom where the Complainant’s primary place of business is located. Such use is in the context of this case not bona fide . The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based on the evidence, it is likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant’s trademark rights predate the Domain Name registration. The Domain Name is a deliberate registration of the Complainant’s trademark through a common typographical error. The fact that the Domain Name redirects to a website that offers travel arrangement services and tour operating services, points to bad faith. Moreover, the Respondent has been involved in some 150 UDRP decisions in the last three years, a fact that further indicates bad faith. The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the 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 Domain Name <sskyscanner.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: December 23, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around sskyscanner.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.