The Complainant is Cube Limited of Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Berwin Leighton Paisner, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Yanting Li of Renhuaxian, Guangdongsheng, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , and are registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 19, 2015. On May 19, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 20, 2015, 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 proceeding commenced on May 28, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 17, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 18, 2015.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on June 22, 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 A. Complainant
The Complainant is a company incorporated in the Isle of Man, and the owner of several registrations for the trade marks 188 and 188BET (the “Trade Mark(s)”) in Europe, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, China, the earliest dating from June 2009. The Trade Marks have been used continuously since 2005 in relation to the Complainant’s online betting and casino services, offered via the Complainant’s website “”. B. Respondent
The Respondent is apparently an individual resident in China. C. The Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain names were registered on September 29, 2014. D. The Website at the Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain names are resolved to websites purporting to be websites of the Complainant, containing the Trade Marks and logos of the Complainant and of the Complainant’s sponsors, and offering remote gaming services in direct competition with those offered by the Complainant (the “Websites”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Marks acquired through use and registration which predate the date of registration of the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that the dominant feature of each of the disputed domain names is the number “188” which is identical to the Complainant’s 188 Trade Mark and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s 188BET Trade Mark. The Panel further finds that the use in the disputed domain names of the letter “b”, an abbreviation for the second word of the Complainant’s 188BET Trade Mark, and an abbreviation of the words “bet” and “betting” in general, if anything, serves to increase the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s Trade Marks.
The Panel finds that the use of the non-distinctive numerical suffixes “00”, “11”, “22”, “33”, “44”, “55”, “66”, “77”, “88” and “99”, respectively, in each of the disputed domain names, does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Trade Marks in any significant way, or otherwise to lessen the likelihood of confusion.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names:
(i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names or a names corresponding to the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain names even if the Respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
There is no evidence that the Complainant has authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain names or to use the Trade Marks. The Complainant has prior rights in the Trade Marks by way of use and registration which precede the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names by almost a decade. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.
The Respondent has failed to show that the Respondent has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain names or that the disputed domain names have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain names have been used in respect of the Websites, which are copycat websites containing the Trade Marks and logos of the Complainant and of the Complainant’s sponsors, and which offer remote gaming services in direct competition with the services offered by the Complainant under the Trade Marks.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In light of the manner of use by the Respondent of the Websites described above, the Panel finds the requisite element of bad faith has been satisfied, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.1
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names have been registered and are 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 names , , , , , , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 6, 2015
1 For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that shall be
evidence of bad faith registration and use. Paragraph 4(b)(iv): “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract,
for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site 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 web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy