WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Mansion (Gibraltar) Limited and Provent Holdings Ltd v. Games, SA
Case No. D2007-1729
1. The Parties
Complainants are Mansion (Gibraltar) Limited, Gibraltar, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and Provent Holdings Ltd, Tortola, British Virgin Islands, both represented by Rajah & Tann, Singapore.
Respondent is Games, SA, San Jose, Costa Rica.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The following disputed domain names are registered with GoD, Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 21, 2007. On November 23, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On November 26, 2007, GoD, Inc. 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”), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 6, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 26, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 28, 2007.
The Center appointed Jeffrey M. Samuels as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 2008. 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
Since August 2004, Complainant Mansion (Gibralter) Limited has been operating a commercial online casino, poker, sportsbook and sports exchange gaming website at “” and “”. These domain names, as well as the names and , are registered in the name of Complainant Provent Holdings Ltd. Provent Holdings Ltd has licensed Mansion (Gibralter) Limited to use these domain names.
Provent Holdings Ltd owns a number of trademark registrations, issued by a number of countries, for the marks MANSION, MANSION and M DEVICE, and MANSION SPEED POKER. See Complaint, Annex D. Provent Holdings Ltd has licensed Mansion (Gibralter) Limited to use Provent Holdings Ltd’s registered marks.
Mansion (Gibralter) Limited has invested substantial time, effort and resources in advertising and marketing its online casino, poker, sportsbook and sports exchange gaming business. Its sites are viewed by hundreds of thousands of visitors each month.
In January 2006, Mansion (Gibralter) Limited organized a poker tournament in Australia entitled “MANSIONP Speed Poker 2006 Asia Pacific Championship.” The tournament was filmed and broadcast in the United States of America on Fox Sports Network in April and May 2006. Mansion (Gibralter) Limited also organized a poker tournament called the “MANSIONP Poker Dome Challenge” that was broadcast over 43 weeks on prime time television on Fox Sports Network. In the course of the televised series, Complainants’ marks and Mansion (Gibralter) Limited’s business were continually highlighted and advertised.
The disputed domain names were registered on March 31, 2007. Each of the domain names resolves to a web site bearing the name “7Plays Online Casino,” which provides goods and/or services that are identical or very similar to those of Mansion (Gibralter) Limited.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainants urge that each of the disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ marks. They note that each of the domain names incorporates the term “mansion” followed by typographical changes or deliberate errors or omissions involving the word “poker,” either through the omission of a letter or the replacement of a letter with another letter that is adjacent on the “Qwerty” keyboard.
Referring to the fact that their marks are both registered and have been widely used and advertised, Complainants further contend that they have rights in the registered marks MANSION, MANSION and M DEVICE, and MANSION SPEED POKER, as well as in various unregistered marks, including MANSION POKER, MANSION.COM, “MANSIONP” and “MANSIONP.”
Complainants contend that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names. They point out that the domain names were registered after Fox broadcasted the MANSIONP Speed Poker 2006 Asia Pacific Championship in the United States of America. According to Complainants, “[t]he Respondent’s misuse of the name and trademark MANSION POKER when none of the purported goods or services on the Website bears any relation whatsoever to the name and trademark MANSION POKER defeats any claim by the Respondent that there was a use of the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.”
Complainants also argue that they have not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to use Complainants’ marks.
Maintaining that Respondent is a direct competitor, Complainants submit that Respondent’s use of confusingly similar versions of Complainants’ marks to attract Internet users to its commercial site does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names.
Finally, Complainants contend that each of the disputed domain names was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainants maintain that Respondent is essentially a typosquatter and that Respondent, as result of such activity, disrupts the business of Mansion (Gibralter) Limited and/or diverts Internet users for Respondent’s own commercial gain.
Complainants also argue that Respondent’s wrongful use of the Complainants’ MANSION mark creates a likelihood of confusion and is a blatant attempt to mislead internet users as to the purpose and origin of the disputed domain names for Respondent’s commercial gain.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to Complainants’ MANSION and MANSION POKER marks. Each of the domain names incorporates in full the distinctive term “Mansion” along with typographical errors or other errors or omissions involving the generic term “poker.” Such acts of typosquatting render the domain names confusingly similar to Complainants’ marks. See, e.g., Mansion (Gibralter) Limited and Provent Holdings Ltd v. Gilmer Smith,WIPO Case No. D2006-1048; Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Dow Jones, L.P. v. Powerclick, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1259.
The Panel further determines that Complainants, through Provent Holdings Ltd’s ownership of registrations for the marks MANSION, MANSION and M DEVICE, and MANSION SPEED POKER, as well as Mansion (Gibralter) Limited’s use of such marks and other related unregistered marks, including MANSION POKER, MANSION.COM, MANSIONP and MANSIONP, have rights in such marks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel holds that Complainants have met their burden of establishing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names.
Given Respondent’s acts of typosquatting, resulting in the confusing similarity of the subject domain names with Complainants’ marks, the Panel does not find that Respondent is using any of the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There also is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names, or that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of any of the domain names.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel rules that each of the disputed domain names was registered and is being used in bad faith. As noted above, each of the domain names resolves to a website bearing the name “7Plays Online Casino,” which provides goods and/or services that are identical or very similar to those of Mansion (Gibralter) Limited. Under such circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy.
The evidence also establishes that, by using the disputed domain names, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its sites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants’ marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such sites or of the products or services on such sites, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the following domain names be transferred to Complainants:
Jeffrey M. Samuels
Sole Panelist
Date: January 29, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy