The Complainant is Casumo Services Limited of Ta’Xbiex, Malta, represented by Domain and Intellectual Property Consultants, DIPCON AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Park HyungJin, of GimHae, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 11, 2014. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. Also on July 11, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming the Respondent as the registrant and providing 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 July 22, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 11, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 13, 2014.
The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on August 27, 2014. 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 active in the online gaming and gambling business which it conducts through its domain name , registered on March 10, 2011. It is the owner of a European Community trademark registration for the name CASUMO, number 010863066, registered on May 7, 2012. The disputed domain name was registered on February 3, 2013 and updated on January 28, 2014. 5. Parties’ Contentions
These are the parties’ contentions with which the Panel does not necessarily agree. A. Complainant
The difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark is the addition of the generic term “casino” which does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark. The Respondent has no rights to the trademark CASUMO and is not the Complainant’s licensee. The disputed domain name is used to host a number of sponsored links. Some of these lead to a competitor of the Complainant. This strongly suggests that the disputed domain name was registered with the Complainant’s mark in mind to commercially profit from misleading consumers searching for information about the Complainant’s business. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent became the holder of the disputed domain in about April 2014. The inclusion of the generic term “casino” in the domain name implies that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks and business. The Respondent is trying to take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark to draw traffic to its website. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark CASUMO, a made-up word, the generic word “casino” which describes the Complainant’s business and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The addition of a generic word and the gTLD “.com” after the Complainant’s distinctive trademark does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. This is particularly the case here where the generic word describes the business carried on using the Complainant’s trademark and that mark is a made-up word with no independent meaning. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “casumocasino” or anything similar and does not appear to engage in a legitimate trade under that or any related name. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks. For these reasons, and in the absence of any response on this point, notably one contradicting the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent has never been connected to it in any way, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant’s trademark is highly distinctive, having no ordinary word meaning. It is highly likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name knowing of the Complainant’s mark since it consists of the Complainant’s mark and the activity that the Complainant carries on using it. It is impossible, at least without a Response to the Complaint, to identify the reason why the Respondent registered the disputed domain name other than to attract business or Internet users to his site who were looking for a site connected to the Complainant’s trademark or business.
The Respondent’s motive in registering and using the disputed domain name seems to have been either to disrupt the Complainant’s relationship with its customers or potential customers, attempt to attract Internet users for potential gain or persuade the Complainant to buy the disputed domain name from him for an amount in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses. These all constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Respondent’s motivation may have been more than one of these and perhaps all three.
It is unnecessary in the circumstances to reach a conclusion about the parking site to which the disputed domain name resolves, the pre-complaint changes in registrant or the cease and desist letter.
For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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.
Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Date: August 29, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy