DECISION

 

Expedia, Inc. v. fiza sajjad

Claim Number: FA2609002243076

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Expedia, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David M. Kelly of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is fiza sajjad ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ukexpedia.co>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 1, 2026; Forum received payment on September 1, 2026.

 

On September 3, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ukexpedia.co> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 September 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 24, 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@ukexpedia.co. Also on September 4, 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is one of the world's largest travel companies. It owns an extensive portfolio or group of travel brands including EXPEDIA, TRAVELOCITY, HOTELS.COM, HOTWIRE, ORBITZ, VRBO, and others that feature the world's broadest supply portfolio, encompassing more than 200 travel booking sites in more than 70 countries covering 3,000,000+ properties, 500+ airlines, and 220,000+ activities. Complainant operates one of the world's largest full-service online travel agencies through its EXPEDIA-branded websites comprised of the <expedia.com> website and localized EXPEDIA websites in more than 40 countries. Its websites provide business and leisure travelers online tools and information to efficiently research, plan, and book travel including housing and lodging, flights, car rentals, and activities. Over the years, Complainant's commercial success has been tremendous: it sells billions of dollars' worth of products and services each year. For example, Complainant's revenues were approximately $14,733,000,000 in 2025, $13,691,000 in 2024, and $12,839,000,000 in 2023. Complainant asserts rights in the EXPEDIA mark based upon its registration in the United States in 1999. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world, and it is famous.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its EXPEDIA mark because it contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding the geographic term "UK", together with the country code top-level domain name ("ccTLD") ".co".

 

According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's EXPEDIA mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent has used the disputed domain name falsely to impersonate Complainant by using the email address <ashi@ukexpedia.co>. Under the guise of falsely impersonating Complainant, Respondent attempted to defraud Complainant and consumers by selling fake EXPEDIA travel reservations and falsely representing that it has the ability to change consumers' existing EXPEDIA reservations. Indeed, Respondent has defrauded at least one consumer who reported Respondent's unlawful activities to Complainant and stated: "I received documents displaying Expedia branding and believed that I was dealing with Expedia," "I received an Expedia-branded invoice," "The invoice was sent in connection with the email address: ashi@ukexpedia.co," and "The Expedia branded invoice dated the same day states "PAID AMOUNT: €1,068.00."

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name is used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the EXPEDIA mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark EXPEDIA, with rights dating back to 1999 and uses it to provide travel and related services.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2026.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain name is used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme.

 

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.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's EXPEDIA mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen and the geographic term "UK", together with the ".co" country code top-level domain ("ccTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), such changes are generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See 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."); see also American Farm Bureau Fed'n and Texas Farm Bureau v. Michael Yeates, FA 1432672 (Forum Apr. 12, 2012) ("Complainant asserts that Respondent's <texasfarmbureau.net> domain name is confusingly similar to its FARM BUREAU mark. The Panel finds that Respondent's addition of the geographic term 'texas' fails to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark."); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."); see also Rockwell Automation v. Zhao Ke, FA 1760051 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) ("The disputed domain name <rockwellautomation.co> corresponds to Complainant's registered ROCKWELL AUTOMATION mark, with the space omitted and the ".co" top-level domain appended thereto. These alterations do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for purposes of the Policy."). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "fiza sajjad". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The disputed domain name is used in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. A respondent's use of an email address incorporating a disputed domain name to pass itself off as a complainant under false pretenses, or its use in support of phishing, may support a finding of failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Forum June 12, 2006) (respondent's use of disputed domain name for phishing was not bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of disputed domain name pursuant to Policy). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Phishing may in and of itself be considered evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Services LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1623601 (Forum July 14, 2015) ("Respondent's attempt to use the <zoietis.com> domain name to phish for personal information in fraudulent emails also constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also Smiths Group plc v. Snooks, FA 1372112 (Forum Mar. 18, 2011) (finding that the respondent's attempt to impersonate an employee of the complainant was evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <ukexpedia.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: September 25, 2026