The Complainant is Manson Capital Ltd. of Tortola, British Virgin Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Fenech & Fenech Advocates, Malta.
The Respondent is handeyenerli of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Reg2C.com Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 28, 2015. On December 28, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 28, 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. Further to the Center’s communication (sent in both English and Turkish) regarding the language of proceeding, the Complainant requested English to be the language of proceeding on January 8, 2016. The Respondent did not reply to this request.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint in both Turkish and English, and the proceedings commenced on January 18, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 7, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 8, 2016.
The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on February 16, 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 is a company with its registered seat in the British Virgin Islands. It is active in the field of offering online betting and gambling services throughout Europe. It offers its services in more than ten languages, including Turkish.
The Complainant is the owner of the European trademark registration for the word mark TEMPOBET, which was registered in 2009 (CTM 8187528). It further owns the European figurative mark TEMPOBET TIMELESS PASSION, which was also registered in 2009 (CTM 8331878). Both trademarks (hereinafter referred to as the “TEMPOBET trademarks”) claim protection particularly for a large variety of gaming and gambling goods and services.
The Complainant further owns and operates several domain names like , and .
The disputed domain name was created on July 2, 2015.
It appears that the Respondent is an individual from Turkey.
At the time of the decision, the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website. However, screenshots have been provided by the Complainant showing that the disputed domain name was previously used for an online gaming site in the Turkish language. According to the provided cache view of the Turkish website, the operator used a copyright disclaimer with explicit reference to the official website of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TEMPOBET trademarks.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s TEMPOBET trademarks except for the addition of “e70”. The Complainant submits that this insertion is a deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, and that the misspelling does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademarks. Accordingly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered TEMPOBET trademarks.
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has never used and does not intend to use the TEMPOBET trademark in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In particular, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is engaged in typosquatting, namely registering and using the disputed domain name, which is apparently a misspelling of the Complainant’s registered trademarks, in an attempt to divert unsuspecting Internet users looking for the Complainant to the Respondent’s website for illicit purposes. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable and on the basis of the Complaint where no Response has been submitted.
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant 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.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.
However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where appropriate, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.
The Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 2.0. A. Language of the Proceedings
The Panel determines in accordance with the Complainant’s request and the Rules, paragraph 11(a), that the language of these administrative proceedings shall be the English language. Although the language of the Registration Agreement is the Turkish language, the Panel finds that it would be inappropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to conduct the proceedings in Turkish and request a costly and time consuming Turkish translation of the Complaint, while the Respondent failed to raise any objection to the Center’s communication with regard to the language of the proceedings, although communicated in Turkish and English. The Panel believes that the Respondent will not be prejudiced by a decision being rendered in the English language. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark TEMPOBET by virtue of at least two Community trademark registrations (CTM 8187528 and CTM 8331878).
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered TEMPOBET trademarks. The addition of “e70” at the end of the fanciful term “tempobet” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered TEMPOBET trademarks.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
While the burden of proof on this element remains with the complainant, panels have recognized that this would result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence in this regard is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production of evidence shifts to the respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or make any convincing argument to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii) and 4(c).
In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s trademark TEMPOBET in a confusingly similar way within the disputed domain name.
In the absence of a Response by the Respondent, there is no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
In particular, the Panel is prepared to find that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in a bona fide manner. The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s registered rights in the TEMPOBET trademark, and that the Respondent has deliberately misspelled the Complainant’s registered trademark in an attempt to divert Internet users seeking the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website for illicit purposes. This is classic “typosquatting” and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy. If the Respondent had had any genuine plans for a bona fide use of the disputed domain name, it could have produced something demonstrable to support any such claim. The Panel infers from its failure to do so that it had no such plans.
Bearing in mind that “tempobete70” is not a recognized term in the Turkish language or otherwise, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is prepared to find, on the evidence filed, that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s registered trademark rights in the mark TEMPOBET when it registered the disputed domain name in 2015. The Panel concludes that the Respondent acted in bad faith by attempting to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark by engaging in typosquatting. The Panel is of the opinion that targeted typosquatting of this nature is sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. The former use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent for online gambling services and its reference to the Complainant’s website within the copyright disclaimer are further strong evidence of bad faith. All this shows that the Respondent targets the Complainant’s core business in bad faith.
The fact that the disputed domain name is currently inactive does not change the Panel’s findings in this regard.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, and that the Complainant has therefore satisfied the required criteria under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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.
Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: March 1, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy