The Complainant is Realm Entertainment Limited of Birkirkara, Malta, represented by Domain and Intellectual Property Consultants, DIPCON AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Sportx Sports of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with D, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the”Center”) on September 13, 2012. On September 14, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 14, 2012, 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 18, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 8, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 9, 2012.
The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on October 18, 2012. 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 company incorporated in Malta that runs a game site located at the domain name under the BETS10 trademark offering a wide range of gambling products and games.
The Complainant owns Community trademark BETS10 (CTM 009941139), which was filed on May 4, 2011 and granted on September 14, 2011. The trademark cover services in classes 36, 38 and 41.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 19, 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant has registered the trademark BETS10 in the European Union.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BETS10 in which the Complainant has rights.
The difference between the disputed domain name and the trademark is the addition of the number “1” and the term “giris”. The word “giris” is the Turkish term for “entry” and is highly connected to the Complainant’s business activities. In addition the Complainant states that the disputed domain name contains the trademark in its entirety and the mere addition of generic or descriptive terms that does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the trademark BETS10 or the disputed domain name, nor Respondent is a licensee of the Complainant. There is no license given with respect to the trademark or the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is used for linked advertisements and information on Turkish. The hyperlinks are related to the same kind of services as the Complainant’s trademark. The trademark BETS10 is used repeatedly in the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, this strongly suggests that the disputed domain name was registered with the trademark BETS10 in mind and to commercially profit from misleading consumers searching for information about the Complainant’s business.
The Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s business when it registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name contains hyperlinks to the same kind of services provided by the Complainant. In addition the trademark BETS10 is used frequently in the disputed domain name on the website.
The Complainant states that a cease and desist letter was sent to the Respondent and no answer was received. The disputed domain name was registered on June 19, 2012, after the Complainant’s trademark was registered.
Finally, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of preventing the Complainant from being able to register and use the disputed domain name and disrupting the business of the Complainant.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name as a remedy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name be transferred:
(1) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(3) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registration cited in the Complaint, the Panel finds that the Complainant has trademark rights in the trademark BETS10.
The threshold test for confusing similarity under the UDRP involves a comparison between the trademark and the domain name itself to determine likelihood of Internet user confusion. In order to satisfy this test, the relevant trademark would generally need to be recognizable as such within the domain name, with the addition of common, dictionary, or descriptive terms typically being regarded as insufficient to prevent threshold Internet user confusion (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), section 1.2).
In this case, the Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BETS10. The addition of the number “1” and the term “giris” does not change this finding. The number “1” may be regarded as generic and the term “giris” means “entry” in Turkish and is highly connected to the Complainant’s business.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant is required to prove that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests. In anticipation of any assertion by the Respondent of having any rights or legitimate interests in terms of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and has registered it in bad faith.
The Respondent had the opportunity to rebutt the prima facie case established by the Complainant in terms of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent has made no reply and there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that it could establish any such rights or legitimate interests.
The Panel finds for the Complainant in terms of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states circumstances which, if found, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
It should be noted that the circumstances of bad faith are not limited to the above.
In reviewing the present case, it appears that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks.
The bad faith of the Respondent is also reinforced through a simple, logical process as well, in the sense that it would indeed be highly unlikely that the Respondent would register randomly and unintentionally a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark with the addition of the related term “giris”. Rather, it seems to this Panel more likely that such registration and use would be motivated by a hoped-for capitalization, i.e., commercial gain from the Complainant’s reputation, as mentioned above.
The Complainant states in its Complaint that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s business when it registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name contains hyperlinks to the same kind of services provided by the Complaint (namely an advertising banner to “superbahiscasino”). In addition the trademark BETS10 is used frequently on the website at the disputed domain name.
The Panel also notes the default of the Respondent, which in the present circumstances “reinforces the inference of bad faith registration and bad faith use”. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Bill Lynn,WIPO Case No. D2001-0915. The Respondent’s address is also incomplete as informed by the international courier used when notifying the Complaint. Incomplete addresses have been considered a sign of bad faith registration (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Home Director, Inc. v. HomeDirector,WIPO Case No. D2000-0111; Royal Bank of Scotland Group v. Stealth Commerce v. a.k.a. Telmex Management Services, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2002-0155).
Thus, taking into account all mentioned elements above, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully proven that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks and service marks in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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 name be transferred to the Complainant.
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 5, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy