DECISION

 

Expedia, Inc. v. ITech Avengers / ITech Avengers Software House

Claim Number: FA2602002205097

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Expedia, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David M. Kelly of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is ITech Avengers / ITech Avengers Software House ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <expediatourismqatar.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 12, 2026; Forum received payment on February 12, 2026.

 

On February 13, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <expediatourismqatar.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On February 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 9, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@expediatourismqatar.com. Also on February 17, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 4, 2026.

 

On March 4, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

On March 5, 2026, Complainant filed Additional Submissions with the Forum.  

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant submits that the domain name is confusingly similar to its famous and federally registered EXPEDIA mark.

 

Complainant submits that Respondent does not have any rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name because it trades on the goodwill of Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not and has never been a licensee of Complainant or authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant submits that Respondent registered and use the domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent states that it is a web development and software services company and that the disputed domain name was registered for the purpose of developing and operating a locally licensed tourism business in the State of Qatar.

 

Respondent submits that the domain was registered in good faith for a Qatar-based tourism business and not for the purpose of misleading customers. Further, that there has been no attempt to impersonate or create confusion with Complainant's business.

 

C. Additional Submissions – Complainant

As stated, Complainant filed Additional Submissions with Forum. Whilst it labelled the submissions as its "Reply", there is no express provision under the Rule for a reply or for Additional Submissions. However, under Rule 12 and Forum Supplemental Rule 7, it is within the Panel's discretion to consider an unsolicited additional submission received from a party (see, for example, Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Tony Klausing,  FA 1928070 (Forum Feb. 8, 2021) ("Panels are generally not inclined to allow unsolicited additional submissions by the parties unless the party seeking to make the additional submission has shown some exceptional circumstances or the panel in its discretion finds there is some additional information or pertinent facts in the additional submissions that is crucial to the case and such new information could not have possibly been included in the original or amended complaint."); K1 Promotions, LLC v. Jordan Fabel / Brandon Myers (Forum Sept. 7, 2020) ("Complainant has simply proceeded as if there is an automatic right of reply to the Response.")

 

The Panel has read the Additional Submissions and finds that they either repeat what was said in the Complaint or make counterarguments already apparent to the Panel. In these circumstances the Panel has rejected the Additional Submissions.

 

FINDINGS

The background facts pertinent to this decision are that:

1.       Complainant provides online travel agency services including housing and lodging, flights, car rentals, and activities, all by reference to the trademark, EXPEDIA;

2.       Complainant is the proprietor of, inter alia, United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 2,224,559, registered February 16, 1999, for the mark EXPEDIA;

3.       Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 3, 2025, concealing its identity by a privacy service; and

4.       the domain name resolves to a website offering tourism services.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant provides evidence of its registration of EXPEDIA with the USPTO, a national trademark authority, and so has shown trademark rights.

 

The remaining question is whether the domain name is confusing similar to Complainant's trademark.   Respondent makes no submissions on this aspect of the Policy. The Panel finds confusing similarity.  The domain name simply combines the trademark with non-distinctive matter. Even when the gTLD is disregarded, the domain name merely adds the descriptive word "tourism", and country name "Qatar", to the trademark (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the gTLD can be disregarded for the purposes of comparison; Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); Expedia v. Bharat Rajawat FA 2094280 (Forum May 16, 2024) ("The Panel finds that the domain name <expediaindianholidays.com> is confusingly similar to the EXPEDIA mark …')).

 

The Panel accordingly finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you 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.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624).

 

There is no evidence that Respondent might genuinely be known by any of the disputed domain name, or that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. The Panel accepts Complainant's assertion that Respondent has no authority to use the trademark. The use of the domain name to offer directly competitive services is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or fair use of the name.

 

The Panel finds no evidence of rights or legitimate interests and a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Caterpillar Inc. v. Carlos Remy, FA 1825645 (Forum Feb. 18, 2019) ("Use of a domain name to pass itself off as a complainant in order to sell competing goods is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."); Expedia v. Prakash Kushwaha FA 1884238 (Forum March 19, 2020) ("Moreover, Respondent uses the <expedianepal.com> domain name to offer travel services that compete with similar services offered by Complainant. In particular, Respondent's competing website offers travel reservation services for tour packages in Nepal. Such tour packages are identical to packages that Complainant has long offered under its EXPEDIA mark. Respondent's use of the domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).")).

 

The onus shifts to Respondent which insists that it only operates tourism services in the State of Qatar. It states that this business is legally registered in Qatar. Exhibited to the Response and submitted to the Forum separately are copies of documents from the QATAR Ministry of Commerce and Industry (business name registration and commercial license) which do not show Respondent's name; do not show the name of the person who submitted the Response and described himself there as the General Manager of Respondent; and refer to a business by the name of "EXPEDIA TOURISUM" (misspelt).

 

This material is of no assistance to the Panel and in any event only shows that Respondent holds the mistaken belief that it has acted in good faith by offering tourism services in the State of Qatar only.

 

Whether Respondent genuinely believed that the domain was registered in good faith, viewed objectively, it was not. Whether it believed that the domain name was not for the purpose of misleading customers, nor an attempt to impersonate or create confusion with Complainant's business, in fact those are the only likely outcomes.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

 

4(b)(iv)        by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The Panel has already found the terms to be confusingly similar. The resolving website clearly exist for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website and the services promoted there (see, for example, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."; Expedia v. Expedia India Tours FA 1459323 (Forum Oct. 8, 2012) finding bad faith under ¶ 4(b)(iv) because ". . . Respondent registered and uses the <expediaindiatours.com> domain name to take advantage of the goodwill associated with Complainant's EXPEDIA mark for the purpose of marketing travel-related services, such as hotel reservations and car rentals, in competition with the business of Complainant. Respondent is thus attempting to create [confusion] among Internet users as to the possibility of Complainant's affiliation with the disputed domain name for Respondent's commercial benefit."); Expedia v. Qaiser Amin FA 1191812 (Forum July 8, 2008) holding respondent's use of the domain name <dubaiexpedia.com> for a competing travel website constitutes bad faith under UDRP ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the third and final element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <expediatourismqatar.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: March 5, 2026