Amadeustravelsolutions.com

The timeline behind amadeustravelsolutions.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Amadeus IT Group, S.A. v. Jose Cuervo, Amadeus Travel Systems Case No. D2025-5201 1. The Parties The Complainant is Amadeus IT Group, S.A., Spain, represented by Ubilibet, S.L., Spain. The Respondent is Jose Cuervo, Amadeus Travel Systems, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <amadeustravelsolutions.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 12, 2025. On December 12, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 15, 2025, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 15, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on December 17, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 18, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was January 7, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on January 8, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Olga Zalomiy as the sole panelist in this matter on January 12, 2026. The Panel f inds 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 a Spanish provider of technology solutions and services f or travel industry. The Complainant has numerous trademark registrations f or its AMADEUS trademark, such as: - the United States of America registration No. 1529969 for the AMADEUS trademark, registered on March 14, 1989; - the United Kingdom registration No. UK 00001315736 f or the AMADEUS trademark, registered on September 14, 1990; and - the International Registration No. 1321806 f or the AMADEUS trademark, registered on June 22, 2016. The Complainant’s trademark has been ranked No. 12 by Brand Finance and f ound to be well known by several UDRP panels. 1 The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 26, 2025. The disputed domain name does not direct to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to its well-known AMADEUS trademark because the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s mark in its entirety. The Complainant argues that the descriptive terms “travel solutions” in the disputed domain name would not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) should be disregarded f rom the assessment of conf using similarity. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because (i) the Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its AMADEUS trademark in the disputed domain name; (ii) the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name f or of fering of goods or services; (iii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name because the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website; and (iv) the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letters. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, because of a variety of factors, such as the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s well-known trademark plus a descriptive term; the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name f or the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor because it is depriving the Complainant of the opportunity to reflect its trademark in a domain name and it is creating a likelihood of conf usion among users. The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad f aith because there is no good f aith use to which the disputed domain name could be put. 1 See, e.g., Amadeus IT Group S.A. v. Connect Systems / Hostonik.com Web Hosting, WIPO Case No. D2018-0252. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed in these proceedings, the Complainant must prove each of the f ollowing elements with respect to the disputed domain name: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (o r threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightf orward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The inclusion of the gTLD “.com” is typically disregarded in the context of the conf using similarity assessment, being a technical requirement of registration. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Although the addition of other terms here, “travel solutions”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such terms does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The evidence on record shows that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or use f or bona f ide offering of goods or services, because at the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name does page 4 not direct to an active website. The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark in a domain name. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad f aith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s well-known AMADEUS trademark and the terms “travel solutions” associated with its business many years after the Complainant’s first trademark registration. Theref ore, it is more likely than not that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the knowledge of the Complainant and targeting its trademark. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. In this case, the composition of the disputed domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s well-known mark and the associated terms, absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent’s choice not to submit any arguments in response to the Complaint, support a f inding of bad f aith. Panels have f ound that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a f inding of bad f aith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, and the absence of a response, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of bad f aith under the Policy. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <amadeustravelsolutions.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Olga Zalomiy/ Olga Zalomiy Sole Panelist Date: January 23, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.