WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION 2XT Tecnologia e Comercio de Informática Ltda v. Lilian Liely Firmino Case No. D2019-0113 1. The Parties

The Complainant is 2XT Tecnologia e Comercio de Informática Ltda of Belo Horizonte, Brazil, represented by Alexandre Rodrigues Atheniense, Brazil.

The Respondent is Lilian Liely Firmino of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. . The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 18, 2019. On January 18, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 19, 2019, 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 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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 25, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 14, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 18, 2019.

The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on February 20, 2019. 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 Brazilian company that operates an online platform selling airplane tickets at promotional prices under the domain name, registered on July 2, 2014.

It is the owner of the Brazilian trademark registration No. 910082448 for PASSAGENS PROMO WWW (and device), filed on October 10, 2015, and registered on December 12, 2017, in class 35.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 16, 20131 , and resolves to an active webpage displaying links and advertisements of promotional air tickets. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant states that since April 2015 it operates a successful online platform selling airplane tickets at promotional prices, being “widely recognized” and enjoying excellent reputation.

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name was registered on April 16, 2013 by the Respondent or by an unknown third party from which the Respondent may have bought it, and appears to be a similar platform but is rather a simple webpage with an embedded Google Search Box with a pre-programmed filter that leads to other websites dedicated to selling airplane tickets.

In the Complainant’s view, the Respondent’s conduct is a clear indication that the Respondent is targeting the Complainant’s clientele. Such assumption is corroborated, under the Complainant’s view, by the fact that the Respondent is the owner and manager of an information technology company, not exploiting any activity in the tourism or e-commerce domains.

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that by registering the disputed domain name the Respondent had the clear intention of exploiting it, capitalizing on the Complainant’s well-established reputation, and generating profits from advertisements, in a way that the Complainant “would have to pay an unfair amount of money to be able to use” the disputed domain name.

In addition to that, the Complainant asserts that it is the owner of a registered trademark before the Brazilian Trademarks’ Office, not having the Respondent any rights or legitimate interests over the disputed domain name, which is almost identical to it, characterizing “typosquatting” and profits generated from Internet traffic redirection.

As to the lack of legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the clear intent of selling it to the highest bidder, given that it did not take any steps to acquire trademark rights over that expression.

As to the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant, quoting Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, indicates that the Respondent has engaged in promoting the disputed domain name so as to generate more traffic to it, diverting the Complainant’s clientele in view of blog postings with alleged promotional offers that could be obtained by clicking on an URL which redirects Internet users to a Complainant’s competitor website.

The Complainant further states that it was prepared to approach the Respondent offering the registration costs of the disputed domain name but came across a Facebook group named “Buying and selling of domain (names), blogs and sites” where an associate of the Respondent mentioned that the disputed domain name had generated more than USD 86,000 since launched, what would characterize the registration of the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent out-of-pocket costs directly related to its registration and maintenance. B. Respondent

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

The Policy provides, at paragraph 4(a), that each of the following three findings must be made in order for the Complainant to prevail:

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 Complainant has established rights in the PASSAGENS PROMO WWW trademark.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), as the dominant feature of the trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests and Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In view of the particulars of this case and also considering that the requirements of paragr