WK Travel, Inc. v bob mukisa, bob mukisa

WIPO Case No. D2023-0590

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

WK Travel, Inc. v. bob mukisa, bob mukisa

Case No. D2023-0590

1. The Parties

The Complainant is WK Travel, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Mitchell,

Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is bob mukisa, bob mukisa, Uganda.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <onetravel.info> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 8, 2023.
On February 9, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 (Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0165495645) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 10,
2023, 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 amendment to the

Complaint on February 17, 2023.

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 paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 14, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. However, the Center received two informal email communications on February 16 and 17, 2023. Accordingly, the Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on March 17, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on March 21, 2023. 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.

The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.

Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to the Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a formal response from the Respondent.

The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is WK Travel, Inc., a United States company operating in the field of travels and owning the following trademark registration for ONETRAVEL:

- United States Trademark Registration No. 4,545,969 for ONETRAVEL, registered on June 10, 2014.

The Complainant also operates on the Internet, its website being “

The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.

According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on October 20, 2022, and it redirects Internet users to the website “ in which travel tours in Africa are purportedly offered for sale.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ONETRAVEL, as the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark.

Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is used by the Respondent to redirect Internet users to the website “ in which travel tours in Africa are purportedly offered for sale.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark ONETRAVEL is well known. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name with the purpose to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website and unauthorized competing services, qualifies as bad faith registration and use.

page 3

B. Respondent

The Respondent has made no formal reply to the Complainant’s contentions. In reference to paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the absence of a reply to the Complainant’s contentions have been put forward or are apparent from the record.

A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.

However, on February 16 and 17, 2023, the Center received the following two informal email communications from two different email addresses, both apparently related to the disputed domain name, both stating to know nothing about the disputed domain name:

“Greetings to all, I hope this email finds you in good health and spirits. I want to make it clear that the
domain name in question does not belong to me. Unfortunately, the domain has been mistakenly identified
as belonging to me. If you would like to use the domain, I have no problem with it and do not claim it as my
own. I would, however, request that you do not send me any emails related to the domain, as I do not wish
to be involved in the confusion caused by this mistake. Furthermore, I do not offer domain sales, so if you
would like to purchase a domain, please contact the Wix Company. Thank you for understanding. Wishing

you all the best Bob Mukisa That's the domain I use below” (February 16, 2023);

“I’ve been copied several times in these emails and I have no idea why as I have no business with any of the

things being discussed

Can I ask please to be excluded from any communication going forward Regards” (February 17, 2023).

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:

(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

The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark ONETRAVEL and that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark ONETRAVEL.

It is well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain, in this case “.info”, is typically ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

page 4

The Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation:

“(i) before any notice to you [respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name,

even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial
gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the three elements of the Policy. However, satisfying the burden of proving a lack of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is potentially quite difficult, since proving a negative circumstance is generally more complicated than establishing a positive one. As such, it is well accepted that it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production to the Respondent. If the Respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

prima facie

The Complainant in its Complaint, and as set out above, has established a case that the domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name is used by the Respondent to redirect Internet users to the website “ in which travel tours in Africa are purportedly offered for sale.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the

The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name (identical to the Complainant’s trademark) carries a high risk of implied affiliation as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Based on the facts of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “[f]or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following
circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of
the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or [has] acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant

page 5

who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable

consideration in excess of [its] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or
service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has]

engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a

competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location”.

Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark ONETRAVEL in the field of travels is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant, and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, especially because the content of the website to which the disputed domain name redirects, in which the same services as the Complainant are offered for sale.

The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith since the Respondent, by choosing a domain name identical to the Complainant’s trademark and by providing the same or similar services as the Complainant in the website to which the disputed domain name is redirecting, is intentionally attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement.

The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order both to disrupt the Complainant’s business, in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, and to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

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, <onetravel.info>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Edoardo Fano/
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: March 27, 2023