The Complainant is Singapore Pools (Private) Limited of Singapore, represented by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Singapore.
The Respondents are WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama and Chicho Vancho of Bulgaria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with eNom, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 12, 2016. On February 12, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 24, 2016 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 February 25, 2016 by Center.
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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 26, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 17, 2016. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 18, 2016.
The Center appointed Nick J. Gardner as the sole panelist in this matter on March 25, 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 was established in 1968 under its present corporate name, and is the only gaming operator that is legally allowed to offer lotteries and sports betting in Singapore. The Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Singapore Totalisator Board, a statutory board which is established under the Singapore
Totalisator Board Act. The Complainant operates its official website at "" (the "Complainant's Website"), which was created on March 12, 1998. The Complainant's Website allows customers to obtain information about the products and services offered by the Complainant and also the latest lotteries and sports betting results.
The Complainant is the proprietor of four registered trademarks in Singapore each being a device mark in stylized form comprising a letter S with above it the word "Singapore" and below it the word "Pools". By way of example one of these marks is the registered trade mark number T9308803Z registered on November 10, 1993 in class 16 in respect of lottery tickets. These trademarks are referred to below as the "SINGAPORE POOLS trademarks".
On September 26, 2012 the Respondents registered the Disputed Domain Name.
The Disputed Domain Name redirects to a website which provides tips on football matches and links to betting services and other associated businesses. It also provides the ability to sign up for an email service providing football tips and other betting related information. The Respondent's website further indicates that they receive referral fees for their activity. The Respondents are not authorised or licensed by the Complainant.
The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondents on January 13, 2016 via email. The Complainant has not received any response to this letter. A. Complainant
The Complainant's case can be summarised as follows.
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the SINGAPORE POOLS trademarks.
(b) The Respondents do not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
(c) The Respondents use the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith as the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves makes use of the Complainant's SINGAPORE POOLS trademark to attract customers to a business which competes with the Complainant's business and is in a related field of activity, namely sports betting. Furthermore, the Respondents have clearly provided false contact details, which is a further indication of bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Preliminary Issues
As a preliminary issue the Panel notes this is a case where one of the Respondents (WhoisGuard, Inc.) appears to be a privacy or proxy registration service while the other Respondent (Chicho Vancho) appears to be the substantive Respondent. The Panel in this case adopts the approach of most UDRP panels, as outlined in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 4.9, as follows: "Most panels in cases involving privacy or proxy services in which such disclosure of an underlying registrant has occurred, appear to have found it appropriate to record in their issued decision both the name of the privacy or proxy registration service appearing in the WhoIs at the time the complaint was filed, and of any disclosed underlying registrant". Accordingly this decision refers to both Respondents. It is not in practical terms necessary to distinguish which Respondent was responsible for specific acts.
The Panel also accepts the submissions filed by the Complainant which show that the contact details provided for the Respondent Chicho Vancho are false and that the address and telephone number provided do not exist. The Panel is satisfied that proper notice of this proceeding was provided to whomever that Respondent really is in accordance with the Rules. No delivery was possible to the postal address in question. However, the requisite material has also been served electronically to the email addresses provided by the Respondents. The Panel adopts the approach set out in paragraph 4.9 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 namely, "once the WIPO Center has notified the complaint to the WhoIs-listed contact information (especially where confirmed by the registrar) for the domain name registrant, this would normally satisfy the requirement in paragraph 2(a) of the UDRP Rules to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice". The Panel also agrees with the statement in WIPO Overview 2.0 on this issue that "Panels have also noted that: (i) there are limits to what can reasonably be done by parties and providers to identify an 'underlying registrant' in the context of the UDRP, and if WhoIs information is not readily usable for communication purposes in such case the registrant must expect to bear any consequences; and (ii) in cases of ambiguity as to the identity of the proper respondent, what matters in terms of notification obligations under the UDRP Rules is not so much the name that may 'formally' appear on the complaint, but that the latter has been duly notified to the reasonably available contact information of the 'registrant', whatever its identity."
Accordingly, the Panel considers it is able to proceed to determine this Complaint and to draw inferences from the Respondents' failure to file any Response. Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant must prove each of the three following elements:
i. the Disputed Domain Name is identical to or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
ii. the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name;
iii. the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of various trademarks which include the words "Singapore Pools". Each of the trademarks is a device mark but each features prominently as part of the registered device the words "Singapore Pools" and in these circumstances the Panel concludes the Disputed Domain Name is similar to each of the above trademarks. Similarity between a domain name and a device mark which includes words or letters is a readily accepted principle where the words or letters comprise a prominent part of the trademark in question – see for example EFG Bank European Financial Group SA v. Jacob Foundation,WIPO Case No. D2000-0036 and Sweeps Vacuum & Repair Centre, Inc. v. Nett Corp.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0031.
The ".org" Top-Level Domain may be disregarded when considering identity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's trademark – see for example Herbalife International, Inc. v. H,WIPO Case No. D2002-0234.
Accordingly the Panel finds that the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy non-exhaustively lists three circumstances that may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests of a respondent in a domain name:
i. before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
ii. the respondent (as an individual, business or other organisation) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
iii. the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
None of these apply in the present circumstances. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondents to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the SINGAPORE POOLS trademarks. The Complainant has prior rights in the SINGAPORE POOLS trademarks which precede the Respondents' registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and thereby the burden of production shifts to the Respondents to produce evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (see for example Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
The Panel finds that the Respondents have failed to produce any evidence to establish any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and no other evidence on record supports such a finding. Accordingly the Panel finds that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In the present circumstances the similar nature of the Disputed Domain Name to the SINGAPORE POOLS trademarks, and the lack of any explanation from the Respondents as to why they registered the Disputed Domain Name, and the evidence as to how the Disputed Domain Name has been used by the Respondents leads the Panel to conclude the registration and use was in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel concludes that it is highly improbable that the Respondents selected the Disputed Domain Name independently and without knowledge of the Complainant or its business. The Respondents' actions are clearly part of a scheme which involves attracting potential customers who are interested in betting and gambling. This is done by use the Disputed Domain Name which is in substance simply the Complainant's name, and which clearly suggests it is likely to be a domain name associated with the Complainant. The content of the website to which the Disputed Domain Name redirects provides material and information relevant to gambling and betting. As such, the use of the Disputed Domain Name is a paradigm example of the conduct referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy as evidence of bad faith namely "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."
Further, the Panel notes the Respondents have not filed a Response and hence have not availed themselves of the opportunity to present any case of legitimate use that they might have. The Panel infers that none exists.
As a result, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled. 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 Name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Nick J. Gardner
Sole Panelist
Date: April 2, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy