WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION WestJet Airlines Ltd. v. Lin Chun Da Case No. D2018-1235 1. The Parties

The Complainant is WestJet Airlines Ltd. of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, represented by Gowlings WLG (Canada) LLP, Canada.

The Respondent is Lin Chun Da of Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 4, 2018. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 5, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding on June 8, 2018. On the same day, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent submitted a request that Chinese be the language of the proceeding on June 9, 2018. The Complainant submitted a reply to that request on June 11, 2018.

The Center verified that 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 14, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 4, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. The Center notified the Parties of the commencement of the Panel appointment process on July 5, 2018.

The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on July 11, 2018. 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 an international airline based in Canada that was founded in 1996. The Complainant offers scheduled services to more than 100 destinations in North America, Central America, the Caribbean and Europe. The Complainant has registered the trademark WESTJET in multiple jurisdictions, including Canadian trademark registrations numbers TMA480424 and TMA651001, registered on August 14, 1997 and October 20, 2005 respectively, and specifying goods and services in multiple classes. Those trademark registrations remain in effect. The Complainant operates its official website at “” where it offers information about itself and offers travel booking services.

The Respondent is an individual located in Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. According to information provided by the Complainant, the Respondent has registered other domain names besides the disputed domain name, at least four of which wholly incorporate third party trademarks, namely , , , and .

The disputed domain name was registered or acquired by the Respondent on December 11, 2016. The disputed domain name is parked at a landing page in Chinese and English that announces that “the domain is for sale!” The disputed domain name is also advertised for sale at a broker’s website in English where Internet users can make offers on domains. The minimum offer for the disputed domain name is USD 99 and the seller’s asking price is USD 6,899.

The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist email to the Respondent, in English, on March 21, 2017. The Respondent replied on March 28, 2018, in English and Chinese, stating that he did not understand. The Complainant sent a follow-up email on June 26, 2017, to which the Respondent did not reply. The Complainant sent a further email on May 7, 2018, to which the Respondent replied the following day, in English only, alleging that he was going to use the disputed domain name to build a website but had not had time yet and also offering to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for one thousand dollars. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WESTJET trademark. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates that trademark. The addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix is without legal significance in determining the issue of similarity.

The Respondent has no rights or legal interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There has never been any relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Respondent is not licensed, or otherwise authorized, be it directly or indirectly, to register or use the WESTJET trademark in any manner whatsoever, including in, or as part of, a domain name. The Respondent is a classic cybersquatter as evidenced by its exorbitant offer to sell the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s activities as a whole completely undermine any claim of rights or bona fide interests.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent acquired the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling, renting, licensing, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of his actual costs in registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent is actively promoting the sale of the disputed domain name for USD 6,899. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding

Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having