The Complainant is Aktiebolaget Trav och Galopp of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Bird & Bird Advokat KB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Martin Vindheim of Akershus, Norway; VisitEurope AS of Tavira, Portugal. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain name , , , , and are registered with eNom (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 19, 2013. On August 20, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 20, 2013, 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 August 30, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 19, 2013. The Response was filed with the Center on September 19, 2013.
The Center appointed Andrew D. S. Lothian as the sole panelist in this matter on October 2, 2013. 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 under the laws of Sweden and is the sole licensed arranger of horse race gambling in Sweden. The Complainant provides various gaming products and services including lotteries, betting, gambling and horse racing under its V65, V75 and V64 trademarks.
The Complainant states that it has continuously used the trademark V65 in connection with its businesses since its incorporation in 1974. The Complainant is the owner of inter alia European Community trademark no. 7428998 registered on June 16, 2009 in respect of the word mark V65, for services in international class 36. The said trademark has an accepted seniority claim of May 22, 2002, based on the Complainant’s corresponding Swedish trademark.
The Complainant states that it has continuously used the trademark V75 in connection with its businesses since 1993. The Complainant is the owner of inter alia European Community trademark no. 1505759 registered on January 31, 2001 in respect of the word mark V75, for services in international class 41. The said trademark has an accepted seniority claim of March 6, 1993, based on the Complainant’s corresponding Swedish trademark.
The Complainant states that it has continuously used the trademark V64 in connection with its businesses since 1999. The Complainant is the owner of inter alia European Community trademark no. 1626761 registered on May 29, 2001 in respect of the word mark V64, for services in international class 41.
The disputed domain name was created on November 11, 2001. The disputed domain name was created on October 3, 2006. On August 19, 2013, the WhoIs in respect of both of the said disputed domain names showed a “last updated” date of June 13, 2013. As at August 9, 2013, the disputed domain names and were being listed for sale on the Respondent's web site at “” entitled “DomainTrader.NO” together with the disputed domain name and the domain names , , and , each at a stated price of NOK 1.
The disputed domain name was created on December 5, 2012. As at June 13, 2013, the said disputed domain name pointed to the Respondent's website at “” entitled “VisitEurope.TV” on which the disputed domain name was offered for sale at a price of NOK 250,000 alongside the words “V75 Premium Brand” and a picture of a horse's head. As at June 17, 2013, the price for the said disputed domain name had been changed to NOK 1. As at August 9, 2013, the said disputed domain name pointed to the Respondent's website at “www./tv” entitled “VisitEurope.TV” on which embedded videos of horses were displayed along with categories entitled “HORSE”, “V75 CAR”, “HORSE GAMBLE” and “HORSE EQUIPMENT”.
The disputed domain name was created on June 13, 2013.
The disputed domain names , and 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant owns rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Complainant asserts that the second level of each of the disputed domain names consists exclusively of the Complainant's relative trademark as listed in the Factual Background section and as such is identical to such relative trademark.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names do not comprise the legal name of the Respondent or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify the Respondent. The Complainant notes that nothing in the publicly available Whols records indicates that the Respondent is or has been commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Complainant states that the Respondent has no trademark or trade name rights corresponding to the disputed domain names and adds that the Complainant has never authorized, licensed or otherwise consented to the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s V65, V75 and V64 trademarks in any manner, including in connection with the disputed domain names, which are each identical to the Complainant’s relative trademark.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not making any legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The Complainant states that the Respondent has intent for a commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers and to tarnish the trademark. The Complainant notes that the Respondent has used the Complainant’s V75 trademark both to offer for sale the disputed domain name and to sell the other disputed domain names, which the Complainant states are displayed in a manner that contributes to misleadingly divert Internet users. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are not used, nor is the Respondent preparing to use them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant states that the Respondent is currently using the Complainant’s V75 trademark to misleadingly divert consumers and tarnish the said trademark through the use of the disputed domain name . The Complainant notes that the said disputed domain name constitutes a website with videos of horses and horse racing. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is also using the Complainant's V65 and V64 trademarks to misleadingly divert consumers and tarnish the said trademarks through the use of the disputed domain names and which lead Internet users to the Respondent's domain shop where the Respondent is offering many of the disputed domain names for sale with the description “Premium brand” together with a photo of a horse head.
The Complainant notes that its relative trademark registrations predate the registration of each corresponding disputed domain name and states that the Respondent must have had knowledge of the said trademarks when registering the disputed domain names. The Complainant notes that its trademarks are registered in the European Union where the Respondent is based. The Complainant submits that its said trademarks are not common generic terms or abbreviations which the Respondent might have chosen for the disputed domain names by chance. The Complainant adds that the fact that the Respondent selected the disputed domain names, each of which is identical to one of the Complainant's trademarks, proves that the Respondent had knowledge of the said marks and registered the disputed domain names in bad faith, as does its use of the disputed domain names in connection with still images and videos of horses.
The Complainant notes that it contacted the Respondent on June 13, 2013 regarding the disputed domain name , which at that date the Respondent was offering for sale at NOK 250,000. The Complainant states that a few days after the said contact, the Respondent had changed the price of the said disputed domain name on the corresponding website to NOK 1. The Complainant notes that after the said contact the said disputed domain name was redirected to the website containing videos of horses.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered along with domain names and on the same date as the Complainant contacted the Respondent and requested transfer of the disputed domain name, namely June 13, 2013. The Complainant adds that according to Whols records the disputed domain names and were updated on the same date, which the Complainant states is an indication that the Respondent bought these two domain names on that day. The Complainant cites Föreningen Roskilde Festival v. Martin Vindheim, WIPO Case No. D2004-0285 in support of its contention that the Respondent has a history of such actions, has engaged in a pattern of such conduct and is a well-known domain name pirate who has been subject to a complaint on a previous occasion. The Complainant notes that none of its trademarks are dictionary terms and asserts that even a cursory search on search engines would have shown that they are trademarks, citing Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, WIPO Case No. D2005-1304.
The Complainant notes that the disputed domain names and were registered on June 22, 2013, namely nine days after the Complainant’s contact with the Respondent and thus that it is beyond doubt that such disputed domain names were registered with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has intentionally registered and used the disputed domain names in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users and buyers of domain names to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks. B. Respondent
It appears to the Panel that English is not the first language of the Respondent and that the Respondent has had some difficulty in expressing the nature of its case. The Panel’s summary of the Respondent’s contentions below contains adjusted word and paragraph order, spelling and punctuation made by the Panel with a view to making sense of the Respondent’s contentions as best it can.
The Respondent requests the Panel to deny all the remedies requested by the Complainant.
The Respondent asserts that all of its domain names are acquired for building tourist attraction portals in, or connected to, its VisitEurope portals, together with about 7,000 other portals, mainly in Europe. The Respondent states that it is not in the gaming or “play” business at all. The Complainant states that in Norway such business is reserved to an organization named NorskTipping and the Respondent would not be permitted to engage in it. The Respondent adds that it has offices in Norway and Portugal.
The Respondent submits that it has not tried to sell the disputed domain names to the Complainant. The Respondent asserts that most of its domain names are automatically listed in a “sale” portal under in order to count hits and log traffic.
The Respondent asserts that it did not know anything about the Complainant before the Complainant’s first mail containing its request to transfer the disputed domain name . The Respondent submits that all of its domain names are legally registered, most of them with the Registrar. The Respondent notes that its first disputed domain name was registered in 2001 and that all of its domain names were registered when available to the public.
The Respondent cites documentation in support of its denial of the Complainant’s submissions. The Respondent notes that all of its graphics are different from those of the Complainant and provides examples from other users of the term “V75”. The Respondent also provides details of two third party owned trademarks registered in Norway, namely V75 RIKS TOTO and WWW.TRAVSERVICE.NO DIN VEIVISER TIL V75 SUKSESS, both of which are used in connection with a horse’s head. The Respondent provides the WhoIs for a third party registered domain name . The Respondent provides a copy of what it states to be a Norwegian court decision in a case brought by VisitOslo AS against the Respondent. The case appears to date from 2008 and to relate to the domain name .
The Respondent states that it has all necessary rights to use the disputed domain names to develop Internet video portals worldwide. The Respondent states that all of the disputed domain names are registered as “free to the public”, or purchased from other domain name holders. The Respondent states that the Complainant has failed to use any sunrise period to register the disputed domain names yet seeks a transfer, which the Respondent finds unacceptable.
The Respondent asserts that none of its domain names have been registered or used in bad faith. The Respondent adds that it builds Internet portals for tourism, cars, family and travel and in the past year has offered full multimedia including video and TV. The Respondent states that its first domain name, the disputed domain name was registered in 2001 to build a family horse portal for “Vindheim's horse breeding”. The Respondent adds that “grandpa Vindheim” was 75 years old and that this is how the use of the letter “V” plus number structure of its domain name registrations began.
The Respondent states that it and the Complainant are not competitors and that the disputed domain names were not registered primarily to disrupt the Complainant’s business. The Respondent asserts that it has been in the Internet business since 1997. 6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In order to assess the question of identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademarks, the applicable top-level suffix in each of the disputed domain names, namely “.tv”, “.biz”, “.mobi” and “.pw” are typically disregarded as they are a technical requirement of registration (see paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)). Once the top-level suffixes have been removed from the disputed domain names it is clear to the Panel that there is identity between the disputed domain names and the corresponding trademark of the Complainant.
In the Panel’s opinion, the Respondent’s submission that its graphics are different from those of the Complainant does not assist its case on this element of the Policy, which serves as a standing requirement and calls for “a comparison between the trademark and the domain name itself” (paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0).
In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the first element under the Policy in respect of each of the disputed domain names. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists several ways in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:
“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”.
The consensus of previous decisions under the Policy is that a complainant may establish this element by making out a prima facie case, not rebutted by the respondent, that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent does come forward with some allegations or evidence of relevant rights or legitimate interest, the panel then weighs all the evidence, with the burden of proof always remaining on the complainant (see paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0).
In the present case, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain names do not comprise the legal name of the Respondent or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify the Respondent, that the Respondent has no trademark or trade name rights corresponding to the domain names and that the Complainant has never authorized, licensed or otherwise consented to the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s V65, V75 and V64 trademarks in any manner, including in connection with the disputed domain names. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent is not making any legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names and has intent for a commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers and to tarnish the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant notes that the Respondent has used the Complainant’s V75 trademark to sell the disputed domain name and is currently using the Complainant’s trademark V75 to sell the other disputed domain names, which the Complainant states are displayed in a manner that contributes to misleadingly divert Internet users. Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are not used, nor is the Respondent preparing to use them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant’s contentions constitute a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Accordingly, it is necessary for the Panel to consider the allegations and evidence brought forward by the Respondent.
The essence of the Respondent’s case is that it acquired all of the disputed domain names in connection with its alleged legitimate business of creating portals regarding tourism, cars, family and travel and that it began to adopt the letter “V” plus number structure in 2001 when “grandpa Vindheim” was 75 years old. However, on close scrutiny the evidence is not supportive of the Respondent’s assertions. In the first place, there is no logic which is apparent to the Panel in the Respondent registering the disputed domain name in 2001 in recognition of a person’s 75th year and then subsequently registering domain names containing lower numbers in later years. The Respondent does not provide any explanation for the formula in these later disputed domain names and it appears to the Panel to be more than coincidence that each of the numbers selected with the letter “V” render the disputed domain names identical to one of the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Respondent's statement that it intended to use the disputed domain names for building portals is hardly credible in the Panel’s opinion when set against the evidence that each of the disputed domain names has been used to promote the sale of one or more of them. The Respondent seeks to explain the current use of the disputed domain names by stating that these were automatically listed in a “sale” portal under in order to count hits and log traffic. This strikes the Panel as a rather curious method of assessing levels of traffic before building a portal. If the Respondent was intent on keeping the disputed domain names for the purpose for which it contends, why would it fix a price on each and offer them for sale? Why would it describe each domain name as a “Premium Brand”? Why would it use the image of a horse's head against each? Why would it still be testing hits and logging traffic on the disputed domain name some twelve years after the date on which the Respondent claims to have registered it? In the Panel’s view these unanswered questions demonstrate the evident weakness in the Respondent’s case.
The Panel notes that the current use of the disputed domain name is in respect of a website featuring videos of horses. The Panel considers that the fact that the use of this particular disputed domain name has recently changed does not assist the Respondent. It is an inescapable fact that when the Respondent was first contacted by the Complainant this disputed domain name was being offered for sale at a price of NOK 250,000 alongside a picture of a horse’s head and the words “Premium Brand”. The present use of the said disputed domain name was only put into place at some point between June 17, 2013 and August 9, 2013, in other words at some point after the Respondent became aware of the Complainant’s cause for complaint regarding the disputed domain name. What is more, although the screenshots produced by the Complainant do not show this, the Complainant contends that the website associated with the said disputed domain name also features horse racing, which is the business of the Complainant. The Respondent has not denied this. The Panel notes that there are links on the corresponding web page including the term “HORSE GAMBLE”, which clearly relates to the trading activities of the Complainant. In these circumstances the Panel does not consider that the present use of this particular disputed domain name gives rise to any rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent.
It is not clear to the Panel why the Respondent has cited third party trademarks containing “V75” and examples of other uses of the term “V75” in Norway and the Respondent merely produces these without further elaboration. In the Panel’s view the fact that others may have rights in, or are using, this term in various ways in the Respondent’s jurisdiction does not assist in showing that the Respondent itself possesses any such rights. There is no evidence arising from the materials provided by the Respondent which demonstrates that the term “V75” constitutes, for example, a dictionary or generic term by virtue of which the Respondent could claim a legitimate interest.
Similarly, the logic of the Respondent’s production of the Norwegian court case papers is lost on the Panel. These are in the Norwegian language and while the Panel could call for a translation in terms of paragraph 11(b) of the Rules, the Panel considers that in the absence of elaboration by the Respondent in the Response nothing would be gained by the Panel reviewing papers relating to a matter which is effectively a dispute between the Respondent and a third party over an unrelated domain name. Finally, the fact that the Complainant's figurative mark differs from the appearance of the “V75 Premium Brand” and horse’s head logo on the Respondent’s website does not in the Panel’s view assist the Respondent. The Complainant does not rely upon figurative trademarks (although it evidently possesses these) for the purposes of this Complaint. What is clear to the Panel is that the Respondent is associating disputed domain names which are identical to the Complainant’s V65, V75 and V64 trademarks with horses and the Respondent offers no reason for doing so other than the unsubstantiated reference to “Vindheim's horse breeding”.
With regard to the Respondent’s alleged use of any of the disputed domain names for “Vindheim's horse breeding” or indeed planned use for various types of portal, the wording of the Policy clearly requires a respondent relying upon paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy to provide suitable evidence of actual preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. In the Panel’s view there is particular significance placed upon the word “demonstrable” in paragraph 4(c)(i), meaning that the Respondent requires to produce sufficient evidence of preparations that are capable of demonstration. The Panel considers that assertions of intent without such evidence are insufficient to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in terms of this paragraph of the Policy.
In the absence of any adequate answers to the questions posed by the Panel, which the Respondent ought readily to have anticipated given the terms of the Response, and in the absence of any more detailed explanations, the Panel considers that the assertions and evidence brought forward by the Complainant are to be preferred, namely that all of the disputed domain names have been offered for sale at one time or another and that this was the Respondent’s true intention rather than the considerably less plausible and unsubstantiated explanations of the Respondent. If such offers for sale were intended to reach the Complainant or a competitor thereof, and the Panel considers that there is no reason to believe otherwise, then in the Panel's view the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services nor can it be described as a noncommercial or fair use.
In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides four, non-exclusive, circumstances that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a 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 that 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 web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location”.
There is little doubt in the Panel’s mind that the Respondent primarily acquired the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or to a competitor thereof for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out of pocket costs. As noted earlier, this particular disputed domain name was originally offered for sale at a price of NOK 250,000 alongside the words “V75 Premium Brand” and a picture of a horse's head. While the Complainant contends that the Respondent must have known of its trademarks prior to registering the disputed domain name and the Respondent denies this, the presence of the horse’s head picture along with the subsequent publication of a category listing entitled “HORSE GAMBLE” leaves the Panel with little doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant’s trademark in mind. In the circumstances, the Panel considers that this constitutes registration and use in bad faith in terms of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
Furthermore, it is beyond doubt that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant and its trademarks when it registered the disputed domain names corresponding to the Complainant's V75 trademark on June 13, 2013, and , and
The Panel notes that a similar conclusion was reached by the panel in Foreningen Roskilde Festival v. Martin Vindheim,WIPO Case No. D2004-0285, a case involving the same Respondent and in which the Respondent also registered further disputed domain names immediately following email contact from the complainant. In that case, the complainant, which was the owner of the trademark ROSKILDE FESTIVAL, contacted the Respondent regarding the domain names and on August 5, 2003. The Respondent registered two additional variants of the complainant’s trademark as domain names, and , within twenty minutes after such contact and listed them for sale. It is notable that while the Complainant cites this case in its Complaint, the Respondent neither comments upon it nor seeks to distinguish the circumstances of the present matter from that case in its Response, presumably in the Panel’s view because it cannot do so.
It is important to note that Foreningen Roskilde Festival, supra also contained another similar feature to that of the present matter, in that the complainant in that case was based in Denmark, yet the Respondent had evidently targeted the complainant’s Danish trademark. In the present matter, the Respondent seeks to rely upon the fact that the Complainant is based in Sweden, a neighboring country of Norway, in connection with the Respondent’s assertion that it lacked any knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks when it registered certain of the disputed domain names. The Panel notes however that the Respondent has evidently been found to have been involved in cybersquatting across Scandinavian countries on a previous occasion. In the Panel’s opinion, this casts further doubt on the credibility of the Respondent’s protestations of its alleged good faith in the present case.
Finally, there is the question of the oldest of the disputed domain names in this case, and , which were created on November 11, 2001 and October 3, 2006 respectively. The Complainant seeks to prove that the Respondent acquired these particular disputed domain names after it was first contacted by the Complainant, on the strength of the “last updated” date on the corresponding WhoIs records, which in each case was the date of such contact, namely June 13, 2013. The Panel would have found it helpful to have had historic WhoIs records for consideration, which may have been conclusive on this point, whereas the “last updated” date is not. The Panel is aware that domain names can be updated for various reasons including for example technical changes such as a substitution of alternative nameservers. That noted, the Panel is aware that historic WhoIs records are not necessarily available in the case of every domain name and, given the manner of collection, such records can sometimes be patchy. This is perhaps the reason why the Complainant has not supplied any such supporting evidence.
In any event, the absence of historic WhoIs records is by no means fatal to the Complainant’s position when the two disputed domain names and are placed into the context of the wider case. The Panel considers that there are sufficient circumstances besides the “last updated” date which point in the direction of registration and use in bad faith relative to these disputed domain names. In the first place, even if the Panel presumes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in 2001 and 2006 respectively, the Complainant’s V75 trademark was already well-established by the date of creation of , having been registered in January 2001 on the strength of an accepted seniority claim of some 8 years prior. Although the Respondent does not plead any defense of laches, the Panel reminds itself that such defense does not generally apply under the Policy in any case, and that delay does not of itself prevent a complainant from succeeding in its complaint, provided the complainant is able to establish a case on the merits under the requisite three elements (see paragraph 4.10 of the WIPO Overview 2.0).
In the second place, if the Respondent’s case that it acquired some twelve years ago and some seven years ago is accepted, its failure to provide any evidence over this extended period of preparations to use these particular disputed domain names for the purposes for which it claims to have registered them, as discussed in the preceding section, is thrown into even sharper relief. The Panel has already addressed the weakness of the Respondent's case above, notably the wholly implausible explanation of acquiring the disputed domain name in connection with a family horse portal for “Vindheim's horse breeding” and in honor of a relative's 75th year. No supporting evidence of the existence of such family business is provided, nor is there any evidence of the use of, or preparations to use, that particular disputed domain name for any such purpose. The Panel is mindful of the fact that both of the disputed domain names and were also being offered for sale by the Respondent alongside the Respondent’s more recent registrations of the other disputed domain names. Finally, it is evident from the circumstances in Foreningen Roskilde Festival, supra, that the Respondent was engaged in the registration and use of other domain names in bad faith in mid to late 2001.
In all of these circumstances, the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain names , , , , and were registered and used in bad faith and accordingly that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been satisfied. 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.
Andrew D. S. Lothian
Sole Panelist
Date: October 16, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy