Skyscanner Limited v Alex Blake, Blake Digital Ventures LLC

WIPO Case No. D2025-0170

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Skyscanner Limited v. Alex Blake, Blake Digital Ventures LLC

Case No. D2025-0170

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Lewis Silkin LLP, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Alex Blake, Blake Digital Ventures LLC, Malta.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <skyscannerdiscountforyou.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 16, 2025. amendment to the Complaint on January 21, 2025.
On January 16, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On January 16, 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, Privacy service provided by Withheld for
Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the

Complainant on January 17, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 January 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 19, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 20, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Tommaso La Scala as the sole panelist in this matter on February 25, 2025. 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 running one of the most famous websites worldwide (a search aggregator and travel agency, also implemented as a popular app), attracting tens of millions of visits per month and offering its services in over 30 languages and in 70 currencies.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous SKYSCANNER trademark registrations, including the
International trademark registration No. 900393 covering classes 35, 38, and 39, registered on March 3,
2006, and designating, inter alia, European Union.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 23, 2024. At the time of submitting the Complaint, the disputed domain name has resolved to a website featuring sponsored links of third parties advertising the services of the Complainant’s competitors.

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.

First, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SKYSCANNER trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Third, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first 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.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name and the addition of the words “discount”

page 3

“for” “you” after the Complainant’s trademark do not avoid the finding of confusing similarity between the

Complainant’s trademark SKYSCANNER and 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.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first 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 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). 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.

The Complainant has shown that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain. Rather, at the time of submitting the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website containing pay-per-click (“PPC”) links that advertise the services of the Complainant’s competitors. Such use surely does not confer rights or legitimate interests upon a respondent.

Indeed, Panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9.

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

Having reviewed the available 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. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for 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 faith.

The disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant first started using its SKYSCANNER trademark and the Complainant’s evidence establishes extensive use of its earlier mark as at the date of registration of the disputed domain name. Given the confusing similarity between the latter and the Complainant’s mark, it is clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its SKYSCANNER mark as at the date of registration of the disputed domain name and registered it in order to take unfair advantage of it.

page 4

In the present case, the Panel also notes that the Respondent connected the disputed domain name to a website displaying sponsored links advertising the services of the Complainant’s competitors. According to relevant UDRP case-law, a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on the website associated with its disputed domain name. Neither the fact that such links are generated by a third party such as a registrar, nor the fact that the respondent itself may not have directly profited, would by itself prevent a finding of bad faith. See section 3.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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 <skyscannerdiscountforyou.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Tommaso La Scala /
Tommaso La Scala
Sole Panelist
Date: March 12, 2025