The Complainant is Cube Limited of Isle of Man, United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Northern Ireland, represented by Berwin Leighton Paisner, United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Northern Ireland.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot / chongqing c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, United States of America. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , and are registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 4, 2015. On December 4, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 6, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing the 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 December 15, 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 December 15, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 16, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 5, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response.
The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 2016. 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, Cube Limited, provides betting products and services through its website “” under its 188 trademarks. The Complainant owns the trademark registrations over the mark 188 in the European Union and the marks 188BET and 188BET & device in the European Union, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Hong Kong, China.
The Respondent, Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot / chongqing c/o Dynadot, registered on March 10, 2014 the disputed domain names , , , , , , and . 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names , , , , , , and , are confusingly similar to its trademark 188, the registration and use of which by the Complainant long precede the registration of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain names , , , , , , and , be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Respondent’s identity
According to the registration information verified by the Registrar, the disputed domain names , , , , , , and were registered under the name “Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot / chongqing c/o Dynadot”. The Complainant requests that all the disputed domain names be heard in one case.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 3(c), the complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. Although the current name of the domain name registrant, i.e., “Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot / chongqing c/o Dynadot”, is apparently not a real name but a privacy protection service, the Panel presumes based on the evidence available that all the disputed domain names identified in the Complaint are registered by the same domain name holder. The Panel, therefore, accepts the Complainant’s request to address all the disputed domain names in one case under the Rules, paragraph 10(e) and 3(c). B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4 (a)(i), a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. In line with such requirement, a complainant must prove its trademark rights and the identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and its trademark.
The Panel finds that before the registration of the disputed domain names the Complainant has acquired the registration of the marks 188, 188BET and 188BET & device, all of which have been used primarily on betting products and services offered on the Internet.
The disputed domain names are , , , , , , and . Apart from the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.com”, all eight disputed domain names follow the pattern of “188 + 20(X)”. Given that 188 is the Complainant’s registered trademark and “20(X)” are non-distinctive numerical characters, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names that embrace the Complainant’s registered trademark 188 in its entirety and put it at the front of the whole character sets are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Therefore, the Complainant has proven the first element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under the Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy and, as stated above, the Respondent does not provide any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain names.
It is apparent from the Complaint that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its business. The Respondent does not rebut the Complainant’s contentions, such as the disputed domain names are not used in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. The lack of a Response leads the Panel to draw a negative inference.
Therefore, and also in light of the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the second element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Respondent does not respond.
The Panel notes that the evidence provided by the Complainant shows that all eight disputed domain names , , , , , , and are used for betting websites, on which the Complainant’s trademarks 188 and 188BET are being shown, although the Complainant never authorized such use of its trademarks. The Panel also notes that the websites at the disputed domain names state that “188BET is owned by Cube Limited registered”.
Since the disputed domain names were registered and are fully controlled by the Respondent, the Respondent is completely responsible for any use of them. Based on the above-mentioned, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names with the clear knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks and related business. As a result, the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names are highly likely to attract and confuse the consumers with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain names’ websites or of the products or services on the websites. Therefore, the registration and use of the disputed domain names constitute evidence of bad faith specified in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Complainant has successfully proven the third element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For all 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.
Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Date: January 29, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy