Skyscanner Limited v Mori Updat, Mori Review

WIPO Case No. D2025-3204

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Skyscanner Limited v. Mori Updat, Mori Review

Case No. D2025-3204

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Mori Updat, Mori Review, Netherlands (Kingdom of the).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <skycanners.online> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 11, 2025. On August 12, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 12, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed f rom the named Respondent (Redacted) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 13, 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 13, 2025.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 August 15, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 4, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s default on September 9, 2025.

The Center appointed Louis-Bernard Buchman as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, which is a company incorporated in England, operates a global travel search engine, enabling its customers to search and compare f lights, hotels, and car hires.

The Complainant owns a global portfolio of trademarks containing the term SKYSCANNER, including inter alia the International trademark SKYSCANNER, registered on March 3, 2006, under Registration No. 900393 and the International trademark SKYSCANNER, registered on December 1, 2009, under Registration No. 1030086 (together hereinaf ter referred to as “the Mark”).

The Complainant is the registrant of the domain name <skyscanner.net>, which directs to its off icial website attracting millions of unique visitors per month (for the month of March 2025 alone, it was visited 41.6 million times).

The disputed domain name <skycanners.online> was registered on May 22, 2025.

The Complainant has submitted evidence that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a copycat website that is very similar to its official website. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website.

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:

(i)        the disputed domain name reproduces the Mark, in which the Complainant has rights, and is

confusingly similar to the Mark insofar as the disputed domain name contains the Mark, which remains
recognizable in the disputed domain name;

(ii) it never authorized the Respondent to use the Mark in any manner and it never had any affiliation with the Respondent, who has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name;

(iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith; in particular, the Respondent had knowledge of the Mark when registering the disputed domain name, and by f raudulently creating confusion with the Mark, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings
6.1. Procedural Aspects - Failure to Respond

Under the Rules, paragraphs 5(f ) and 14(a), the ef fect of a failure to submit a formal response by the Respondent is that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the basis of the Complaint.

page 3

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it is the Complainant’s burden to establish that all three of the required criteria for a transfer of the disputed domain name have been met, even in the absence of a formal response.

Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel is empowered to draw such inferences f rom the
Respondent’s failure to f ile a formal response as it considers appropriate under the circumstances.

In this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainant.

In particular, by failing to respond, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise, f rom which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Moreover, as discussed below, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent has acted in bad faith.

6.2. Three Elements under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
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 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 Panel notes that, as aforesaid, the Respondent did not rebut these assertions and finds that despite the transposition of the letter “s” f rom the middle to the end of the Mark, the Mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name.

Although this typosquatting may bear on the assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds that such transposition of a letter does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.

Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Regarding the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.online” in the disputed domain name, it is well established that a gTLD does not generally affect the assessment for the purpose of determining identity or confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

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

page 4

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 satisf ied 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 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.

Moreover, prior UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as impersonation, passing of f , or other types of f raud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent; see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.

The Complainant has provided evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolved to a website passing of f as the Complainant’s of f icial website.

The Panel f inds 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.

In the present case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s decision to register the disputed domain name, confusingly similar to the Mark, reflects both the Respondent’s specific targeting of the Mark (which several prior URDP panels have recognized as being well-known – see for instance Skyscanner Limited v. Basit Ali, WIPO Case No. D2012-1983 and Skyscanner Limited v. iverson lim, WIPO Case No. D2025-1811) and its clear intent to capitalize on the Complainant’s rights, demonstrated by the Respondent’s attempt to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, by using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website very similar to that of the Complainant. Such conduct falls squarely into bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The current non-use of the disputed domain name does not change the Panel’s finding of the Respondent’s bad faith in this case.

Furthermore, some UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, registrants of domain names have a duty to abstain from registering and using a domain name, which is either identical or confusingly similar to a prior trademark held by others and which would infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of a third party. See Policy, paragraph 2(b); Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, WIPO Case No. D2000-1397; Nuplex Industries Limited v. Nuplex, WIPO Case No. D2007-0078; Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, WIPO Case No. D2005-1304; BOUYGUES v. Chengzhang, Lu Ciagao, WIPO Case No. D2007-1325; Media

General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2006-0964; and mVisible

Technologies, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1141.

As a consequence, the Panel f inds that the registration and use of the disputed domain name by the

Respondent constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 5

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 <skycanners.online> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Louis-Bernard Buchman/
Louis-Bernard Buchman
Sole Panelist
Date: September 23, 2025