Skyscanner Limited v Jubayer Hossain, Cyber Planet BD, Rakibul Hasan

WIPO Case No. D2025-2663

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Skyscanner Limited v. Jubayer Hossain, Cyber Planet BD, Rakibul Hasan,
Mamun Sardar, Web Plus

Case No. D2025-2663

1. The Parties

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

The Respondents are Jubayer Hossain, Cyber Planet BD, Rakibul Hasan, and Mamun Sardar, Web Plus,

Bangladesh.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain name <skyscanner-flightbook.com> is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. and the
disputed domain names <skyscannerflightbook.com>, <skyscanner-flightbooking.com> and

<flightbooksky.com> are registered with Dynadot, Inc. (the “Registrars”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 7, 2025. On July 8, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 9, 2025, and July 10, 2025, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (“N/A”) and contact information in the Complaint.

The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 10, 2025, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 15, 2025, and a further amended Complaint on August 6, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 10, 2025. The Center commenced the panel appointment process on September 11, 2025.

The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 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.

On July 15, 2025, the recorded owner, as disclosed by the Registrar, of the disputed domain name <skyscanner-flightbook.com> wrote to the Center to explain that even though he was recorded as proprietor of the said disputed domain name, he was in fact a domain reseller acting on behalf of one of his customers, who he identified. He claimed good faith, indicated that he had suspended the hosting account of the disputed domain name and offered to grant it back to the Complainant.

The proceedings were suspended on July 23, 2025, and the Parties signed a settlement form on July 24,
2025, in view of the transfer of the disputed domain name <skyscanner-flightbook.com>.

But the Registrar, Cosmotown, Inc., never took any action to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant and the latter sought the reinstatement of the UDRP proceedings. The Center ordered the proceedings to be resumed as of August 21, 2025. On August 22, 2025, the Registrar indicated it would cooperate with the implementation of the settlement agreement between the Parties. The Center once again suspended the proceedings on August 28, 2025, but after the Registrar again failed to cooperate, the proceedings were reinstituted at the Complainant’s request.

In parallel, on August 6, 2025, the Complainant filed a second amended Complaint, requesting the addition of two further domain names to the ongoing proceedings, namely <skyscanner-flightbooking.com> and <flightbooksky.com>, claiming that they were controlled by the same Respondent and should therefore be consolidated with the two disputed domain names initially targeted in the Complaint.

On September 25, 2025, upon request of the Panel, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar, registrant and contact information for the additional disputed domain names.
Dynadot Inc, a request for registrar verification in connection with the additional disputed domain names. On

On September 29, 2025, the Panel issued a Procedural Order disclosing the details of the registrant for the additional domain names and invited the Parties to provide possible further arguments by the respective deadlines of October 4 and October 9, 2025.

Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent filed any further arguments.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is Skyscanner Limited, a United Kingdom based company that operates a worldwide online platform for the booking of flights, hotels, and rental cars.

The Complainant contends that its official website “ attracts tens of millions of unique visits per month and that its smart device app has been downloaded over 70 million times, that its services are available in over thirty languages and in seventy currencies and that in March 2025 alone, its website, was visited 41.6 million times.

page 3

It owns trademark rights in the mark SKYSCANNER, inter alia:

- International Trade Mark Registration No. 900393, registered on March 3, 2006;
- International Trade Mark Registration No. 1030086, registered on December 1, 2009;
- Indian Trade Mark Registration No. 1890840, registered on December 2, 2009;
- United Kingdom Trade Mark Registration No. UK00002313916, registered on April 30, 2004;
- Canadian Trade Mark Registration No. TMA786689, registered on January 10, 2011; and

- New Zealand Trade Mark Registration No. 816550, registered on October 7, 2010.

The disputed domain names are:

<skyscanner-flightbook.com>, registered on 2 June 2025; and

<skyscannerflightbook.com>, registered on 28 June 2025.

The additional disputed domain names are:

<flightbooksky.com>, registered on July 14, 2025; and
<skyscanner-flightbooking.com>, registered on July 16, 2025.

All are directed to identical web pages dedicated to flight booking services, using the Complainant’s favicon, trademark, logo, and corporate colours.

Mail exchange (“MX”) servers have been set up in relation with the disputed domain names.

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 names are confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Furthermore, the Complainant contends the disputed domain names were registered to collect sensitive personal data via the login pages which the disputed domain names resolved to.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, in the sense that no arguments were developed showing that the Respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and did not register and use the same in bad faith.

However, the recorded registrant of the disputed domain name <skyscanner-flightbook.com> wrote to the Standard Settlement Form indicating consent to the requested transfer, but since the concerned Registrar did not cooperate in implementing the settlement agreement between the Parties, the Panel will decide the case on the merits.

page 4

6. Discussion and Findings

It is incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph

4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i));

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (paragraph

4(a)(ii)); and;

(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).

Consolidation: Multiple Respondents

The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules.

The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request.

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.

In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or
corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable
to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition

(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2.

As regards common control, the Panel notes that the domain names <skyscanner-flightbook.com> and

<skyscannerflightbook.com> in respect of which the Complaint was initially filed:

- are nearly identical;

- are both owned by nominally different registrants located in Bangladesh;

- both direct to identical web pages, dedicated to flight booking services using the Complainant’s

favicon, trademark, logo, and corporate colours.

As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party.

Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding, in respect of the disputed domain names <skyscanner-flightbook.com> and <skyscannerflightbook.com>, initially requested in the Complaint.

Concerning the Complainant’s request for consolidation of the two additional disputed domain names formally commenced.

<skyscanner-flightbooking.com> and <flightbooksky.com>, that were introduced in the Complainant’s second
amended Complaint of August 6, 2025, it is noted that this request for addition of domain names to the

page 5

The Complainant points out that those two additional domain names have been registered a few days after the Center communicated for the first time with the Respondent (on July 10, 2025), and that they both are redirected to the same web pages as the first two disputed domain names.

The Panel further observes that they are owned by a Respondent located in Bangladesh and are formed with the same terms as the first two disputed domain names.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.12.2 reflects the reluctance of panelists to accept the consolidation of domain names when the request is lodged after the proceedings have formally commenced, “except in limited cases where there is evidence of respondent attempt to frustrate the proceedings (e.g., by the respondent’s

registration of additional domain names subsequent to complaint notification)”.

The Panel hereby finds that in the present situation, the disputed domain names <skyscanner- flightbooking.com> and <flightbooksky.com> were registered after the Respondent had been informed of the commencement of the Complaint against the first two disputed domain names, and immediately directed towards the same web page as the first two disputed domain names, dedicated to flight booking services using the Complainant’s favicon, trademark, logo, and corporate colours.

This is regarded as an attempt to frustrate the proceedings.

Consequently, the Panel hereby decides that the addition and consolidation of the domain names

<skyscanner-flightbooking.com> and <flightbooksky.com> shall be granted.

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 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 three of the disputed domain names, namely <skyscanner- flightbook.com>, <skyscannerflightbook.com> and <skyscanner-flightbooking.com>. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms (here, “flightbook(ing)”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

As far as the fourth disputed domain name <flightbooksky.com> is concerned, the Panel must observe that the Complainant’s trademark SKYSCANNER is only partially reproduced. Nonetheless, a dominant feature of the Complainant’s trademark, “sky”, is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. Moreover, the relevant website (identical to the other three disputed domain names), wholly and prominently

incorporates the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER mark in a purported phishing login webpage, which clearly
indicates knowledge of the Complainant and suggests the Respondent registered the disputed domain name
in the belief that Internet users may confuse it with the Complainant’s trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0,

sections 1.7 and 1.15.

The said disputed domain name is therefore found confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the

Policy.

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

page 6

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.

(i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the
disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide

offering of goods or services;

(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the

disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without
intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at
issue.

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.

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 names, particularly by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain names.

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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not make any bona fide use – neither commercial, nor noncommercial – of the disputed domain names.

The Respondent has indicated that although the disputed domain name <skyscanner-flightbook.com> is registered in his name, he is only a domain name reseller acting on behalf of one of its customers. Not only does the Panel find the explanation poorly convincing, but it also considers that such a circumstance does not justify any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant claims the fact that its trademark SKYSCANNER, that has been registered and used for years, is distinctive and now benefits from a high level of public awareness.

Earlier UDRP decisions have acknowledged the Complainant’s trademark rights:

Skyscanner Limited v. Basit Ali, WIPO Case No. D2012-1983: Skyscanner Limited had presented
“…compelling evidence that its SKYSCANNER trade mark enjoys considerable reputation among potential
customers”.

page 7

Skyscanner Limited v. Khaled Samir, WIPO Case No. D2020-2669: Skyscanner Limited: “(1):… has registered its SkyScanner and SKYSCANNER marks in many countries around the world; (2), transacts an enormous volume of business by reference to those marks; (3) has received considerable publicity by reference to its corporate name over the years… and (5) any use of that name anywhere in the world is likely to be actionable”.

The Panel observes besides that the Respondent made the choice of associating the Complainant’s trademark with the term “flightbook”, that is necessarily associated with the Complainant’s services of flights booking.

For this Panel, it is a clear indication that the Respondent had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when it registered the disputed domain names.

The Panel infers from the above that the Respondent acted in bad faith when it registered the disputed domain names.

The Complainant has also shown that the disputed domain names are directed to web pages dedicated to a service of flights booking, where the Complainant’s favicon, trademark, logo, and corporate colours are reproduced.

For this Panel, this circumstance reveals that the Respondent uses the disputed domain names to impersonate the Complainant and exploit the goodwill and reputation attached to the Complainant’s trademarks for either commercial gain or illegitimate activities, by attracting Internet users to its web pages, and purportedly seeking to obtain sensitive personal data, such as passwords, from the Internet users.

Further, the Complainant has filed evidence showing that the Respondent had set up MX servers in relation with the disputed domain names, thus revealing a possible intention to use the same as email addresses associated with the disputed domain names for fraudulent purposes.

Although no evidence of such fraudulent acts has been brought in the present proceedings, the Panel is not
unaware of the common practice whereby hackers register domain names consisting of well-known
brand names or company names, in order to use email addresses imitating the same, with the aim of

engaging in acts of deception and extortion of Internet users.

In any event, the evidenced web page use is sufficient to establish bad faith in the present case.

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 names <skyscanner-flightbook.com>, <skyscannerflightbook.com>,

<skyscanner-flightbooking.com> and <flightbooksky.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/William Lobelson/
William Lobelson
Sole Panelist
Date: October 10, 2025