The Complainant is Betsson Malta Ltd. of Ta Xbiex, Malta, represented by Dipcon AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Brainman Wiaslova of Massachusetts, United States of America. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , and are registered with Spot Domain LLC dba D. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 30, 2011. On October 3, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Spot Domain LLC dba D a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 4, 2011, Spot Domain LLC dba D 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 20, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 9, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 10, 2011.
The Center appointed Dilek Ustun Ekdial as the sole panelist in this matter on November 16, 2011. 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 one of the leading online gambling and gaming companies in Europe, founded in 1963, and conducts all of the gaming operations, with the head office in Malta. The Complainant is active in 20 markets around the world and has more than 2.5 million registered users.
The Complainant operates a web page under “” and is the owner of several domain names comprising the word “Betsson”, also registered in many countries as ccTLDs.
According to the information provided by Spot Domain LLC dba D, the disputed domain names , , , and were created on May 17, 2011 and was created on September 11, 2010.
The Complainant has several BETSSON trademark registrations internationally and regionally (EU) and these registrations date back to 2007, i.e. well before the disputed domain names were created. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant refers to some previous WIPO UDRP Cases in which the same Respondent has already been involved.
According to the Complainant the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BETSSON. The addition of the suffixes “line” and some numbers are not relevant and will not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the disputed domain names. Also, the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the disputed domain names and is therefore irrelevant to determine the confusing similarity of the disputed domain names to the trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant has not found that the Respondent has any personal name or that there is any name of any service or product range provided by the Respondent corresponding to the disputed domain names. It is also clear that no license or authorization of any other kind has been given by the Complainant to the Respondent to use the trademark.
The Complainant tried to contact the Respondent on June 27, 2011 through a cease and desist letter. No response was received.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the websites. Also, it has been established by the Complainant that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of conduct to trade on well-known trademarks and attract visitors to its websites. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to decide a Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant bears the burden of showing:
(i) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concurs with the opinion of several prior UDRP panels which have held that, when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark that may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. See, e.g., Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho (d/b/a Hitachi Ltd) v. Arthur Wrangle, WIPO Case No. D2005-1105; Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903; Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0047; Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. ,WIPO Case No. D2002-0615. In this Panel’s view, the addition of the terms “line” and some numbers do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s trademark.
Additionally the Respondent has brought no argument that the disputed domain names are not identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not provided any evidence of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or any other circumstances giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. It is clear that the Respondent has not demonstrated any bona fide offering of goods and services by its using the disputed domain names. Nor has the Respondent shown that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
The Complainant showed, inter alia, that the Respondent has neither a license nor any other permission to use the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, and the Respondent has failed to demonstrate such rights or legitimate interests.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that given the use formerly made of the disputed domain names, when the Respondent registered the disputed domain names it knew that BETSSON was the trademark of the Complainant, and that he registered the disputed domain names in bad faith.
It is obvious to this Panel that by using the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Panel notes that the Respondent is offering in Turkish on the websites at the disputed domain names Complainant’s services and competitors services in the area of gambling. In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
There is no suggestion that the Respondent had any intention of legitimate use, that it enjoys a connection to the disputed domain names or that there is conceivable good faith use for the disputed domain names. After examining all circumstances surrounding the registration and use of the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Accordingly the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names , , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Dilek Ustun Ekdial
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 30, 2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy