TravelPerk S.L. v 石磊 (Lei Shi)

WIPO Case No. D2024-1954

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

TravelPerk S.L. v. 石磊 (Lei Shi)

Case No. D2024-1954

1. The Parties

The Complainant is TravelPerk S.L., Spain, represented by Ubilibet, S.L., Spain.

The Respondent is 石磊 (Lei Shi), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <traveperk.com> is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology

Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 9,

2024. On May 10, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification

in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 11, 2024, 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 information in the

Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 13, 2024, providing the

registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an

amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on May 14, 2024.

On May 13, 2024, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the

Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On May 14, 2024, the Complainant

requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on

the Complainant’s submission.

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 in English

and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 20, 2024. In accordance with the

Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 9, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 10, 2024.

The Center appointed James Wang as the sole panelist in this matter on June 19, 2024. 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 a new-generation business travel management and booking platform for the corporate

travel industry. The Complainant promotes its business at “

Since its inception in early 2016, the Complainant has expanded its reach extensively across the globe, with

key hubs in Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America (“United States”).

The Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for the mark TRAVELPERK, including but not

limited to:

- European Union trademark No. 017878133, registered on July 13, 2018; and

- United States trademark registration No. 6021485, registered on March 31, 2020.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 23, 2024, and resolves to a pay-per-click page.

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 identical or confusingly similar to the

TRAVELPERK trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate

interests in respect of the disputed domain name. 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

6.1 Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the

Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise

in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the

registration agreement.

The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be

English.

page 3

The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to

exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all

relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the

proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP

Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

Considering the Center has already sent Chinese-English dual language case-related communications to the

Parties, including communications regarding the language of the proceeding, and thereby given the

Respondent an opportunity to comment on or to oppose the Complainant’s request and arguments, and

considering the Respondent’s default and lack of reaction after having been given a fair chance to comment

or oppose, together with the fact that the disputed domain name consists of only Latin letters instead of

Chinese characters, the Panel finds it would not be unfair to proceed in English as requested by the

Complainant.

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the

language of the proceeding shall be English.

6.2 Substantive Elements

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; and

(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 faith.

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 provided evidence that it is the registrant of TRAVELPERK trademark registrations.

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 that a misspelled TRAVELPERK mark (omitting the letter “l”) is recognizable 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 1.9.

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

page 4

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.

In the present case, 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.

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

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 faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates a misspelled version of the

Complainant’s prior registered trademark TRAVELPERK mark (omitting the letter “l”), and it is almost

identical to the Complainant’s domain name <travelperk.com>. Further, the disputed domain name resolves

to a pay-per-click page. Therefore, the Panel finds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent

has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by

creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s TRAVELPERK mark, which constitutes bad faith

under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

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 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 <traveperk.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/James Wang/

James Wang

Sole Panelist

Date: July 3, 2024