Complainant is K Limited of St. Julians, Malta, represented by Origin Ltd., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”).
Respondent is Simon Collins of London, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and (the “Domain Names”) are registered with Webfusion Ltd trading as 123-reg (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 21, 2015. On April 22, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On April 23, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 27, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 17, 2015. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 18, 2015.
The Center appointed Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 2015. 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
Complainant is a leading interactive entertainment company for the mobile world. Complainant develops and markets online social and mobile games.
According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant or a related company has Community Trade Mark and United States of America trademark registrations for BUBBLE WITCH and BUBBLE WITCH SAGA.
In particular Complainant is the owner of the following trademark:
- Community Trade Mark BUBBLE WITCH SAGA with number 1125481, registration date May 2, 2012.
The Domain Names and were registered on June 20, 2012.
The Community Trade Mark registration of Complainant was issued prior to the registration of the Domain Names. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant submits that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to its BUBBLE WITCH SAGA trademark as the Domain Names incorporated the BUBBLE WITCH SAGA trademark in its entirety with only typographical changes or misspellings of the word “witch”. This is not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Names from the BUBBLE WITCH SAGA trademark.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names as Respondent is not affiliated or related to Complainant in any way, nor is Respondent licensed or authorized to use the BUBBLE WITCH SAGA trademark. Respondent is also not commonly known by the Domain Names and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the BUBBLE WITCH SAGA trademark.
The Domain Names resolve to parking websites where users are redirected to a third party website “” which website offers competitive bingo games. Respondent did not demonstrate use of the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent is also not commonly known by the Domain Names.
Complainant submits that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith as Respondent no doubt had knowledge of the well-known trademarks of Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the Domain Names should be transferred or cancelled:
(i) the Domain Names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and
(iii) the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in this proceeding. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must first of all establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant has established that it is the owner of a Community Trade Mark registration for BUBBLE WITCH SAGA. The Panel notes that Complainant’s registration of its Community Trade Mark predates the creation date of the Domain Names.
The Domain Names incorporate the entirety of the widely-known BUBBLE WITCH SAGA trademark as its distinctive element. Many UDRP panels have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The obvious misspellings in the Domain Names, also referred to as typosquatting, are insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity as the BUBBLE WITCH SAGA trademark remains the dominant component of the Domain Names.
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s Community Trade Mark and paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In the opinion of the Panel, Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the Domain Names incorporating its marks. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark of Complainant. Based on the evidence provided by Complainant, Respondent only uses the Domain Names in order to direct Internet users to a parking website on which Internet users are redirected to the website “” offering various bingo games provided by competitors of Complainant; such (re)direction cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names. In addition, the website does not accurately and prominently disclose the relationship between Respondent and Complainant as the holder of the BUBBLE WITCH SAGA trademark, in particular as there has never been any business relationship between Complainant and Respondent. Respondent is also not commonly known by the Domain Names nor has it acquired any trademark rights.
No Response to the Complaint was filed and Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie case.
Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Complainant has rights in the BUBBLE WITCH SAGA Community Trade Mark. Respondent knew or should have known that the Domain Names included Complainant’s widely-known mark.
The Panel notes that the Domain Names currently redirect Internet users to the website “”. The Panel further notes that the Domain Names incorporate Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with some minor misspellings (also referred to as typosquatting), which indicates, in the circumstances of this case, that Respondent registered and used the Domain Names with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith and paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has 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 Domain Names and be transferred to Complainant.
Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan
Sole Panelist
Date: May 28, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy