The Complainant is Realm Entertainment Limited of Ta’ Xbiex, Malta, represented by Domain and Intellectual Property Consultants, DIPCON AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America / Erdal YILDIZ of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 30, 2013. On August 30, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 2, 2013 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 3, 2013.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 11, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 1, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 2, 2013.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on October 7, 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 operates on online gaming business under the trade mark BETS10. Its website generates more than 50 million page views a month. The Complainant first applied for a Community Trademark for BETS10 on May 4, 2011. The Respondent operates a website under the disputed domain name containing links to sites offering services similar to those of the Complainant, and frequently using the BETS10 trade mark.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 18, 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that it has been registered, and is being used, in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trade mark in its entirety. The addition of a descriptive term denoting one of the categories of service which the mark is registered does nothing to prevent the disputed domain name from being identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark. Indeed, it only increases the likelihood of confusion.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed names (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110).
In this case, there is no evidence that the Respondent has ever been known by a name related to the disputed domain name, or that it has a legitimate basis for the use of the Complainant’s trade mark. The use of a domain name for a website evidently intending to profit from confusion created by a disputed domain name does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests in that name.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The use of the Complainant’s trade mark on the website operated under the disputed domain name, the presence of links on the Respondent’s site to sites offering services similar to those offered by the Complainant, and the strength of the likelihood of confusion in this case, all strongly indicate an intention to profit from that confusion. Such an intention is the classic case of the registration and continued use of a 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.
Michael J. Spence
Sole Panelist
Date: October 13, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy