The Complainant is Ritzio Purchase Limited of Nicosia, Cyprus, represented by Mapa Trademarks SL, Spain.
The Respondents are Private Whois, Global Domain Privacy Services Inc. of Marbella, Panama / Sergey Budusov, Infostar Management Ltd of London, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Boston Law Group, PC, United States of America. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Names , , , , are registered with URL Solutions, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 29, 2015. On June 29, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On July 1, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 8, 2015 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 July 13, 2015.
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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced July 17, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 6, 2015. The Response was filed with the Center on August 6, 2015.
On September 8, 2015, the Center received the Complainant’s supplemental filing. On September 13, 2015, the Center received the Respondent’s supplemental filing. On September 17, 2015, the Center received a second supplemental filing from the Complainant.
The Center appointed Charné Le Roux, Assen Alexiev and Paul M. DeCicco as panelists in this matter on September 16, 2015. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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 Cyprus based company and has, since 1992, conducted business in the field of gaming, casino and entertainment products and services under the trade marks ВУЛКАН (which is translated into English as VOLCANO or VULCAN), ВУЛКАН and LIGHTINGBOLT design in red, blue and yellow colour combinations, VULCAN, VULKAN and VOLCANO (hereinafter the VULKAN trade marks). The Complainant operates over 200 branded gaming clubs and more than 5,800 gaming machines throughout Europe. It has more than 2,000 employees and operations in countries including Germany, Romania, Latvia, Belarus, Croatia and Italy. The Complainant’s operating revenue between the periods 2006 and 2010 was in excess of USD 5.5 billion.
The Complainant owns trade mark registrations for the VULKAN trade marks as indicated in the schedule below:
COUNTRY
TRADE MARK
REGISTRATION NO
REGISTRATION DATE
International Registration designating:
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Estonia
Georgia
Kyrgystan
Kazakhstan
Lithuania
Latvia
Moldova
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
ВУЛКАН & design
791038
September 3, 2002
Russian Federation
VULKAN
353692
November 18, 2005
Russian Federation
ВУЛКАН & design
342290
January 28, 2008
International Registration designating:
Belarus
European Community
Croatia
Kazakhstan
Serbia
Ukraine
VOLCANO
989103
August 11, 2008
Russian Federation
ВУЛКАН & design
342291
January 28, 2008
Russian Federation
ВУЛКАН & design
353694
June 25, 2008
International Registration designating:
Belarus
Kazakhstan
Ukraine
ВУЛКАН & design
992196
October 17, 2008
International Registration designating:
Belarus
Kazakhstan
Ukraine
ВУЛКАН & design
977713
August 12, 2008
International Registration designating:
Belarus
European Community
Croatia
Kazakhstan
Serbia
Ukraine
VULKAN
984297
August 11, 2008
The registrations extend to goods and services in the field in which the Complainant operates, particularly gaming and entertainment services in class 41.
In respect of International registration no. 791038, the mark proceeded to grant in all the designated territories.
In respect of International trade mark no. 989103, the mark proceeded to grant unchanged in Belarus, Croatia and Serbia. In Kazakhstan, it has been subject to provisional refusal. It proceed to grant in the other designated countries, save for a modified set of goods and services e.g. the application proceeded to grant as a Community Trade Mark in respect of goods and services in classes 16, 21, 25, 28, 35, 39, 41, 43 and 45.
In respect of International trade mark no. 992196, the mark was provisionally refused in Kazakhstan, totally refused in Belarus and proceed to grant in the remaining territory of Ukraine in respect of goods and services in classes 3,18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34 and 36.
In respect of International trade mark registration no. 977713, the mark was provisionally refused in Kazakhstan and proceeded to grant in the other designating countries save for a modified set of goods and services e.g. the mark proceeded to grant in Ukraine in respect of goods and services in classes 3,18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34 and 36.
In respect of International trade mark no. 984297, the mark proceeded to grant unchanged in Croatia. It was refused in Ukraine and provisionally refused in Kazakhstan. It proceeded to grant in all the other designated countries in respect of a modified set of goods and services e.g. the application proceeded to grant as a Community Trade Mark in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 21, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 45.
The Respondents affiliate, and the operator of the Disputed Domain Names, GGS Ltd, filed cancellation proceedings in respect of all the Russian registrations on July 24, 2015, shortly after notification to the Respondents of these proceedings.
The Disputed Domain Names were registered on the following dates:
March 7, 2014
March 27, 2013
March 27, 2013
May 20, 2014
July 10, 2012
All the websites associated with the Disputed Domain Names offer online gaming services. They all incorporate the ВУЛКАН and ВУЛКАН and LIGHTINGBOLT design trade marks, including the colour combinations red, blue and yellow. The websites are in the Russian language.
Three previous UDRP decisions are relevant to the matter and were specifically relied on by the parties namely, EvoPlay LLC v. Mr Timur Ziganshin / Moniker Privacy Services / Timur ,WIPO Case No. D2015-0222; EvoPlay LLP v. Mardiros Haladjian / GGS Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2015-0252; and Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, PrivacyP / Timur Ziganshin / Lianna Tall, Escave Ltd / Private Whois, Global Domain Privacy Services Inc / Moniker Privacy Services,WIPO Case No. D2015-0875. These decisions are discussed in more detail in the decision. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that it has acquired rights in the VULKAN trade marks as a consequence of:
a. The registration of its trade marks in the Russian Federation and as International trade marks over the period 2002 to 2008; and
b. Its substantial use of the VULKAN trade marks for over 20 years and its global online presence and physical operations in numerous countries including Germany, Romania, Latvia, Belarus, Croatia and Italy.
The Complainant contends that its VULKAN trade marks are well known and it supports this contention with evidence indicating that it operates more than 200 branded gaming clubs, has more than 5,800 gaming machines, employs more than 2,000 people in operations in the countries mentioned above and its substantial operating revenue also indicated above. Its evidence included independent and in-house sources speaking to the Complainant’s activities and growth. The Complainant also mentions recognition that it received from the International Gaming Awards for its commitment for Corporate Social Responsibility in 2005.
The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to its VULKAN trade marks, stating that the Disputed Domain Names wholly incorporate its VULKAN and VULCAN trade marks, adding only the generic terms “best”, “deluxe”, “deluxe”, “play” and “moi” (being a Russian word that means “my” in English). It contends that these generic terms do not affect the confusing similarity of the Disputed Domain Names and trade marks.
The Complainant contends that the Respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names in that:
a. the Respondents are not licensees of the Complainant nor have they received any permission or consent from the Complainant to use its trade marks.
b. The Complainant registered its trade marks prior to the registration of the Disputed Domain Names.
c. The Respondents are not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names.
d. The Respondents’ sole intention in adopting the Disputed Domain Names was to attract Internet users for commercial gain to the Respondents’ websites by creating a likelihood of confusion.
e. The business that the Respondents conduct at the Disputed Domain Names does not constitute legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names, in that online casinos operate at the websites associated with the Disputed Domain Names and that these websites incorporate exact copies of the ВУЛКАН and ВУЛКАН and LIGHTINGBOLT design trade marks, including the colour combinations red, blue and yellow, imitating the look and feel of the Complainant’s gaming clubs.
The Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that given the trade mark registrations and reputation and widespread use of the VULKAN trade marks, the Respondents’ use of the Disputed Domain Names would constitute an infringement of the Complainant’s trade mark rights. The Complainant also points out that all the Disputed Domain Names operate as full functional online casinos created for commercial gain and that the use of the VULKAN trade marks for this purpose demonstrates the Respondents’ intention to attract Internet users to the Respondents’ website by creating a likelihood of confusion. The Complainant submits that the Respondents maximize the effect of the confusion by using exact colour copies of the ВУЛКАН and LIGHTINGBOLT design trade mark in the navigation panel on the top of each website page.
The Complainant also submits that the fact that the Respondents concealed themselves behind a privacy service and also excluded any legitimate contact information on the website pages associated with the Disputed Domain Names (there is an email address and Russian phone numbers on the websites which seem to be non-existent), also indicate the Respondents’ bad faith.
The Complainant lastly provides translated pages of the said websites, pointing out the following texts that clearly refer to the Complainant’s history: “Excitement, prestige, honesty: more than 20 years Slots Volcano combine these three concepts. Visiting the house’s residents have already visited Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan as well as foreign countries” and “Game club VOLCANO gives it players the best opportunity for the perfect pastime in the online casino, being original and only real club VOLCANO could guarantee the integrity of the game and the maximum safety of your data”. The Complainant submits that the Respondents use the words “original” and “only real” in the text above specifically to emphasize their connection to the Complainant.
The Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Names be transferred to it. B. Respondents
In the very substantial Response filed, the Respondents submit in connection with the Complainant’s trade mark rights:
a. That the Complainant’s trademark registrations in the Russian Federation are invalid on the basis that the provision of all casino and gambling services (save for 4 government approved locations) were effectively banned in the Russian Federation in 2009 and that any continued claim for protection for any gambling related activities by the Complainant in that territory would be unlawful. They also state that since the Complainant has, as a consequence of the ban, not used its trade marks in the Russian Federation for longer than the statutory non-use period, the registrations are vulnerable to cancellation also on the ground of non-use. They point out that cancellation proceedings were filed by the operator of the websites at the Disputed Domain Names namely, GGS Ltd, on July 24, 2015;
b. That the Complainant’s International trademark registrations are invalid, since they are dependent upon the validity of their underlying Russian registrations, with reference to Article 6 of the Madrid Protocol;
c. That the Complainant shares rights in the VULKAN trade marks with other parties. The Respondents refer in this regard to refusals from national intellectual property registries and objections from third parties to the International registrations, giving rise to the provisional refusals and limitations dealt with in the Factual Background above. The Respondents also argue that VOLCANO related imagery is popular in the context of gambling and that gambling related trade marks frequently incorporate references to volcanoes and volcano related imagery. It refers to the volcano at the Mirage Casino in Las Vegas in this respect.
The Respondents contend in connection with their rights and/or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names that there was a relationship between the Complainant and the operator of the website associated with the Disputed Domain Names, GGS Ltd. They contend that GGS Ltd has operated the Disputed Domain Names and their affiliated websites with the implicit consent of the Complainant for nearly four years and that there have been extensive discussions between GGS Ltd and the Complainant regarding possible joint projects. The Respondents argue that the Complainant’s conduct in this regard constitutes acquiescence and implied consent to the Respondents’ and GGS Ltd’s use of the VULKAN trade marks and operation of the Disputed Domain Names.
The Respondents state further that since the Complainant had not been operating in the Russian Federation or Ukraine under the VULKAN trade marks for four years at the time that the Respondents first registered the Disputed Domain Names, the Complainant could not, because of the ban on gambling by the Russian Federation, make any use of these trade marks in future. The Respondents submit that they had a good faith belief that they were not infringing any legitimate trade mark rights when they registered the Disputed Domain Names which they indicate, was to be used in the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
The Respondents deny that the Disputed Domain Names were registered or used in bad faith because they had a legitimate and plausible non-infringing reason for registering them for the reasons set out above. Furthermore that the websites associated with the Disputed Domain Names are not copycat websites that compete with the Complainant as the Complainant does not operate online gaming services in the Russian Federation or Ukraine where the Disputed Domain Names are used, or elsewhere in the world. They also state that the websites have been operating openly and with the implicit consent of the Complainant for nearly four years and consequently that the Complainant’s acquiescence and implied consent invalidate the Complainant’s argument based on bad faith.
The Respondents also deny that there is any bad faith to be attached to the use of the privacy service and that there are many legitimate reasons for such a service. The Respondents state that the Complainant has brought the current proceeding in bad faith and in an attempt to reverse hijack the Disputed Domain Names.
The Respondents deal finally with the prior UDRP proceedings. As the decision in the matter involving Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, PrivacyP / Timur Ziganshin / Lianna Tall, Escave Ltd / Private Whois, Global Domain Privacy Services Inc / Moniker Privacy Services,WIPO Case No. D2015-0875, had not been published at the time they filed their Response, they refer mainly to the first two UDRP decisions EvoPlay LLC v. Mr Timur Ziganshin / Moniker Privacy Services / Timur supra, and EvoPlay LLP v. Mardiros Haladjian / GGS Ltd. supra, pointing out that in both those decisions, the complaints were denied on the basis that the issues were not suited for resolution under UDRP proceedings. The Respondents argue that because the parties and issues in those proceedings and in this Complaint are virtually identical, the Panel in this proceeding should follow the decisions in the previous proceedings. They submit that the issues raised in this proceeding are outside the scope of the type of proceedings contemplated by the Policy and are better decided by traditional means. C. Supplemental Filings
The Complainant filed supplemental evidence referring to the publication of the decision in Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, PrivacyP / Timur Ziganshin / Lianna Tall, Escave Ltd / Private Whois, Global Domain Privacy Services Inc / Moniker Privacy Services,WIPO Case No. D2015-0875, and indicates that this decision, which found in favour of the Complainant, should be followed in this instance. The Respondents replied to the supplemental filing of the Complainant, stating that judicial proceedings had been filed in the Seychelles both for a declaratory order that the Respondents do not infringe the Complainant’s rights in respect of its trade marks and a prohibition in respect of the transfer of the Disputed Domain Names in the matter referenced above. This triggered a second supplemental filing by the Complainant, reiterating that the court proceedings instituted by the Respondents were purely in order to halt the transfer of the disputed domain names so that the Respondents could continue to parasitize on the VULKAN trade marks and that the lawsuit was filed only to create complexity in this matter. It also took issue with the fact that the lawsuit had been filed in the Seychelles as opposed to the Russian Federation, where one of the Respondents, Timur Ziganshin, was resident, and state that this was done to avoid exposure of the unlawful gaming services provided by the Respondents in the Russian Federation. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Disputed Domain Names, the Complainant must prove on a balance of probabilities:
(i) that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which it has rights;
(ii) that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and
(iii) that the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Supplemental Filings
Unsolicited supplemental filings should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances, in line with the Policy objective of delivering prompt and effective resolution of domain name disputes. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel views of Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) at paragraph 4.2. These exceptional circumstances generally involve matters that arise after the initial pleadings were filed and which could not reasonably have been anticipated at that time. In this instance, the decision in Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, PrivacyP / Timur Ziganshin / Lianna Tall, Escave Ltd / Private Whois, Global Domain Privacy Services Inc / Moniker Privacy Services,WIPO Case No. D2015-0875, as well as the filing of the proceedings in the Seychelles arose after the initial pleadings were filed and the supplemental filings by the Complainant and the Respondents will consequently be admitted in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Rules. B. Previous UDRP decisions
The three previous UDRP decisions relied on by the parties namely, EvoPlay LLC v. Mr Timur Ziganshin / Moniker Privacy Services / Timur,WIPO Case No. D2015-0222; EvoPlay LLP v. Mardiros Haladjian / GGS Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2015-0252; and Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, PrivacyP / Timur Ziganshin / Lianna Tall, Escave Ltd / Private Whois, Global Domain Privacy Services Inc / Moniker Privacy Services,WIPO Case No. D2015-0875, involved parties similar to/connected with the parties in this matter. The trade marks that formed the basis of those complaints were identical and the same legal arguments were advanced by the parties. In the first two decisions the complaints were rejected largely because the panels took the view that the issues raised by the parties, which included the validity of the trade mark rights, the complainants’ standing as purported licensees and trade mark abandonment/acquiescence arguments, were complex issues which exceeded the relatively narrow confines of the Policy. The panels in these disputes did not, as a consequence, consider the merits of the matters. The panel in the last matter came to a decision based on the merits after it had conducted an examination of the requisite elements of the Policy and found that the case was not as complex as it first seemed, and that it was able to come to a determination as to whether each of the elements of the Policy had been shown.
The UDRP does not operate a strict doctrine of precedent, although it is desirable that panel decisions are consistent, especially where they deal with similar fact situations, to allow the UDRP system to operate in a fair, effective and predictable manner. See WIPO Overview 2.0 at paragraph 4.1. Panels should not, however, blindly follow previous decisions simply because there are similar facts. They should conduct an independent, thorough, examination of each of the Policy elements and if they disagree with earlier cases, an explanation must be provided. This is the approach that the Panel in this matter has also adopted, in line with the decisions in Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, PrivacyP / Timur Ziganshin / Lianna Tall, Escave Ltd / Private Whois, Global Domain Privacy Services Inc / Moniker Privacy Services,WIPO Case No. D2015-0875 and IFA Hotels & Resorts FZE v. Jaffar Sharif,WIPO Case No. D2008-0895. C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has furnished evidence of trade mark registrations for the VULKAN trade marks currently on the Russian Trade Marks Register, as well as International trade marks. The fact that cancellation applications were filed in respect of the Russian registrations after these proceedings commenced do not assist the Respondent in defeating the Complainant’s rights claim under this threshold requirement. Even if the Russian registrations are eventually cancelled, this still leaves the International registrations in respect of which the Respondent’s invalidation argument seems to be incorrect in law. At least International trade mark registration no. 791038 was over 7 years old in 2009 when gambling was banned in the Russian Federation and therefore, under Article 6 of the Madrid Protocol, it can no longer be affected by the fate of the original Russian trade mark registration.
The Complainant has also produced evidence of use of its VULKAN trade marks in commerce, claiming that its trade marks have, as a consequence, become well known. The Respondents did not dispute the evidence that the Complainant provided regarding its extensive use in commerce, save to state that the Complainant shares rights in the trade marks VULKAN, VOLCANO with other entities in the gambling industry. The strength of a trade mark and how many others have similar marks are not taken into account under this Policy requirement, although it may be of relevance in determining a respondent’s right or legitimate interest or even bad faith in respect of a disputed domain name. The inquiry under this element of the Policy concerns only a mark in which the Complainant currently has rights and identity or confusing similarity with the Disputed Domain Names. UDRP panels typically apply a low threshold test under the first element of a UDRP complaint. See Research in Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC.,WIPO Case No. D2009-0227.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has succeeded in proving that it has rights in the VULKAN trade marks. The Panel also has no difficulty in finding that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trade marks in issue. They all wholly incorporate at least one of the VULKAN trade marks, combined with common and descriptive terms. With respect to , the Panel accepts that the term “Vulcan” is phonetically identical to the Complainant’s VULKAN word mark. The Respondents have also not disputed the Complainant’s argument that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to its VULKAN trade marks.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this Policy requirement. D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove a negative, namely that the Respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. This is accomplished as follows:
“Therefore a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such a 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 fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP. If the respondent does come forward with some allegations or evidence of relevant rights or legitimate interests, the panel then weighs all the evidence with the burden of proof always remaining on the complainant.” See WIPO Overview 2.0 at paragraph 2.1.
The Respondents argue that the vulnerability of the Complainant’s rights in the Russian Federation provided them with the bona fide use that they require in order to succeed in showing rights and/or legitimate interests. They also submit in connection with their rights and legitimate interests that the Complainant shares rights in the VULKAN trade marks with other parties and lastly that there was a relationship between the Complainant and the website operator associated with the Disputed Domain Names, GGS Ltd. This Panel has not been persuaded by the Respondents’ submissions that they have rights or legitimate interests as required and finds rather that there are many aspects of the Respondents’ conduct which demonstrate a lack of legitimate and bona fide interest, as set out below.
a. The Respondents’ affiliate, GGS Ltd, only filed cancellation proceedings in respect of the Russian registrations after notification to the Respondents of this Complaint, almost four years after registration of the first Disputed Domain Name in connection with this matter. The Panel expects that a bona fide legitimate competitor would first apply to cancel trade mark registrations which may place it at risk of infringement, before adopting possibly contentious domain names.
b. The Respondents adopted more than one of the Complainant’s VULKAN trade marks on their websites, namely ВУЛКАН, the LIGHTINGBOLT and SEMI-CIRCLE design and the exact blue, red and yellow colour combinations.
c. The Respondents clearly attempted to align themselves with the Complainant, if reference is had to the translations of text that appear on the websites, for example “more than 20 years Slots Volcano” (the Respondents have only been operational for the past 4 years, whereas the Complainant has operated for the past 20 years), “a gaming brand well known in many countries” (the Respondents indicate in their Response that they only target Russia and Ukraine) and “being original and only real club Volcano”.
It is not in dispute that the Disputed Domain Names are used for commercial gain.
The Panel is also not persuaded that the third party oppositions that the Respondents provided and the single instance of actual use of volcano imagery by a casino in Las Vegas assist the Respondents. The evidence on record is limited to rather bare, official opposition documents (some not translated) and not official findings. The Panel would have expected an argument that the Complainant’s VULKAN trade marks are common to be supported at least by evidence of use by a significant number of third parties. In any event, the fact that the Complainant has been issued with registration certificates for these marks in several territories contradict this point of the Respondents.
Turning to the Respondents’ arguments regarding the Complainant’s acquiescence and implied consent to the Respondents to use the VULKAN trade marks, they fall under the doctrine of laches which UDRP panels have generally declined to apply. See for example Progman Consulting Oy v. Whois Watchdog, WIPO Case No. D2010-1393, where the Panel states that “It is by now well established that trade mark doctrines of laches or estoppel have not been incorporated into the Policy”. See also WIPO Overview 2.0 at paragraph 4.1. A delay in bringing a complaint under the UDRP may make it more difficult for a complainant to establish its case on the merits, particularly where the delay has been substantial. However, the Respondents have not provided any evidence in support of the relationship that they allege between the Complainant and the operator of the websites associated with the Disputed Domain Names, GGS Ltd, and the period of the delay by the Complainant in filing this Complaint has not been sufficiently substantial, in this Panel’s view, to warrant a departure from the general principle indicated above.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has carried its burden of proof under this Policy heading. E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondents registered and set up their websites at a time when the Complainant had an established reputation and registrations for its trade marks. They selected not only one aspect of but many versions of the trade marks that the Complainant has used and/or registered to promote their gambling services. They clearly have not been unaware of the Complainant’s rights and a finding that there has been deliberate targeting of the Complainant by the Respondents seems difficult to avoid.
The Respondents furthermore also provide gambling services to members of the public in the Russian Federation and Ukraine and on their own version, these activities seem to be illegal in the Russian Federation. This further demonstrates the lack of good faith on the part of the Respondents.
The Panel is of the view that the Respondents selected and registered the Disputed Domain Names to reap advantage of the Complainant’s reputation and trade marks and, taking all of the circumstances of this case into account, finds that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are in being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. F. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The Respondents request a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking which is defined as “using the Policy in bad faith in attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name”. In view of the Panel’s finding under the three elements of the Policy the Panel also denies the Respondent’s request. 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.
Charné Le Roux
Presiding Panelist
Assen Alexiev
Panelist
Paul M. DeCicco
Panelist
Date: October 7, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy