Amadeus It Group, S.A. v Ivan Spasenovic, Gruppo Via del Corso Ltd

WIPO Case No. D2025-2186

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Amadeus IT Group, S.A. v. Ivan Spasenovic, Gruppo Via del Corso Ltd

Case No. D2025-2186

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Amadeus IT Group, S.A., Spain, represented by Ubilibet, Spain.

The Respondent is Ivan Spasenovic, Gruppo Via del Corso Ltd, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <heyamadeus.com> is registered with Unstoppable Domains Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 4, 2025. On connection with the disputed domain name. On June 20 and 23, 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 (Not disclosed/REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 26, 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 June 30, 2025.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied 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 notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 20, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on June 21, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Peter Burgstaller as the sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 2025. 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 established under Spanish law and provides technology solutions and services for the entire travel ecosystem, such as airlines, airports and ground handlers, rail companies and operators, railway inf rastructure companies, cruise and ferry operators, car rental agencies, hotels and event venues, insurance providers, travel sellers, tourism boards, travel agencies, travelers themselves and more. It of fers also a solution called “Amadeus Hey!” which is an all-in-one solution designed to enhance traveler engagement.

The Complainant provides information about its services on its corporate website available under the domain name <amadeus.com> (Annex 3 and 6 to the Complaint). Further, the Complainant has registered various domain names containing the sign “AMADEUS HEY”, such as <amadeushey.com>, <amadeushey.org>, or <amadeushey.net>.

The Complaint owns several trademark registrations consisting of or including the mark AMADEUS in various jurisdictions, inter alia,

- German trademark registration, Reg.-No. 1110297, registered August 30, 1987;

- Spanish trademark registration, Reg.-No. M1204988, registered March 2, 1990;

- European Union trademark registration, Reg.-No. 002069375, registered August 29, 2005;

- United States of America trademark registration, Reg.-No. 73682376, registered March 14, 1989, or The disputed domain name was registered on April 18, 2025 (Annex 1 to the Complaint); at the time of filing the Complaint the disputed domain name referred to a website where it was offered for sale for USD 2.988 (Annex 4 to the Complaint).

- United Kingdom trademark registration, Reg.-No UK00902069375, registered August 29, 2005 (Annex
6 to the Complaint).

The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent – the Respondent did not respond

(Annex 6 to the Complaint).

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the distinctive and well-known AMADEUS mark in which the Complainant has rights. The only difference to the AMADEUS mark is the pref ix “hey” which term cannot eliminate the confusing similarity towards the Complainant’s AMADEUS mark.

Furthermore, the Complainant notes that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not linked to the Complainant in any way whatsoever and has never been authorized by the Complainant to register domain names that are similar to its trademark. The Respondent is moreover not commonly known by or associated with the disputed domain name and does not use it for any bona f ide of fering of goods or services.

page 3

Finally, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. The disputed domain name was registered decades af ter the Complainant has established rights in the mark AMADEUS and its mark is well-known; hence, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights in the mark AMADEUS when registering the disputed domain name.

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolved to a website with no material content but where it was of fered for sale for USD 2.988, an amount that far exceeds the out-of -pocket expenses associated with the domain name registration, which is a further indication of bad faith under the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

(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 with respect to the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward 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 the mark AMADEUS for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

In the present case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark AMADEUS in which the Complainant has rights since it incorporates the entirety of the mark and only adds the term “hey” as prefix to the AMADEUS mark.

It has long been established under UDRP decisions that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the mere addition of other terms like in the present case, does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity under the f irst element of the Policy. This is the case at present. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Finally, it has also long been held that generic Top-level Domains (“gTLDs”) (in this case “.com”) are
generally disregarded when evaluating the confusing similarity of a disputed domain name. WIPO Overview

3.0, section 1.11.1.

Based on the available record, 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.

While 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 often impossible

page 4

task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often 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 forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; it has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred, or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the AMADEUS trademark in any manner.

The Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name is not being used for a bona f ide of fering of goods or services; rather the disputed domain name is held by the Respondent only for selling the disputed domain name for an amount that likely exceeds the out-of -pocket expenses associated with its registration, which does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under the circumstances of this case.

Finally, the Respondent did not provide any evidence showing its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and did not allegedly respond to a cease-and-desist letter of the Complainant.

Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

As stated in many decisions rendered under the Policy, both conditions, registration and use in bad faith, must be demonstrated; consequently, the Complainant must show that: the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith; and the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

(i) The Complainant has established rights in the mark AMADEUS decades before the registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant is using the mark AMADEUS as its primary domain name, <amadeus.com>, to address its corporate website.

Because of the reputation of the AMADEUS mark, it is virtually inconceivable for this Panel that the Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity (as it is in the present case) can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

Plainly, the term “hey” as prefix to the AMADEUS mark in the disputed domain name rather conf irms the impression that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its mark when registering the disputed domain name, since the Complainant of fers a special service/solution called “Amadeus Hey!”.

Finally, a simple online search for “amadeus” would have shown the Complainant and its marks. WIPO

Overview 3.0, section 3.2.3.

Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith by the

Respondent.

(ii) The disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith, putting emphasis on the following:

- the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, and is thus suited to divert or mislead potential Internet users from the website they are actually trying to visit (the Complainant’s site);

page 5

- the disputed domain name resolves to a website, where it is offered for sale for an amount that far exceeds
the out-of -pocket expenses associated with a domain name registration; and
- the Respondent did not rebut the contentions, neither by replying to the Complaint nor allegedly answering

to a cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainant.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <heyamadeus.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Peter Burgstaller/
Peter Burgstaller
Sole Panelist
Date: August 13, 2025