The Complainant is Singapore Pools (Private) Limited of Singapore, represented by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Singapore.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America (“United States”) / Ben John, OSG of Sulawesi Selatan, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). The disputed domain name was registered on October 13, 2014. 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 February 12, 2016, 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 15, 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 18, 2016.
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 February 19, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 10, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 11, 2016.
The Center appointed Andrew Brown Q.C. as the sole panelist in this matter on March 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 is a company incorporated in Singapore. It was established in 1968 under its present company name. It is the only gaming operator that is legally allowed to offer lotteries and sports betting in Singapore. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Singapore Totalisator Board, a statutory board established under the Singapore Totalisator Board Act.
The Complainant owns the domain name . It operates its official website at that domain name, 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 the latest lotteries and sports betting results. In particular, the Complainant’s website publishes “TOTO”, “4D” and “Singapore Sweeps” lottery results.
The Complainant owns four trademarks for its SINGAPORE POOLS logo. The logo comprises the words SINGAPORE POOLS and a stylized ‘S’ device. The trademarks are registered in classes 16, 41, 28 and 36. The class 16 registration was registered at least as early as November 21, 2000,, the class 41 registration from September 28, 1999, while the class 28 registration was registered from May 8, 2003 and the class 36 registration was registered from August 7, 2000..
It appears from screen shots of the disputed domain name that the website displayed at the disputed domain name provides tables of “4D Singapore Toto Pools Result[s]”. The tables provide a date and “result” of four numbers. “TOTO” is a “6 out of 49 lotto game” which has operated since May 1968.
It appears that the Complainant discovered the existence of the disputed domain name at a date in late 2015 or early 2016.
On January 13, 2016, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent’s proxy service via email. The Complainant did not receive a response. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that by reason of its long history, extensive use and ownership of the “Singapore Pools” name, the trademarks, and the domain name, the Complainant has acquired substantial reputation and goodwill in the course of its operations as Singapore’s only legalized sports betting and lotteries operator. It states that SINGAPORE POOLS is a mark that is well-known to the public at large.
As to the first requirement under the Policy, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks and to its well-known “SINGAPORE POOLS” mark in which it has rights.
The Complainant refers to the decision Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited v. Juancho Feliciano,WIPO Case No. D2005-0375 in which the Panel found that the disputed domain names and were confusingly similar to the trademark CANADIAN TIRE because the term “Can” is a common abbreviation for “Canada”. The Complainant contends that “SG” is essentially a common short form or abbreviation of the word “Singapore”. Therefore the Complainant contends that the abbreviation of “SINGAPORE” to “SG” is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademarks or well-known mark. The Complainant contends that it is likely for customers wishing to access the Complainant’s website to type “SG” instead of the longer form “Singapore”. The word “pools” is entirely incorporated into the disputed domain name.
As to the second requirement under the Policy, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. It contends first that the mere registration of a domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interest in that domain name. Secondly, the Complainant states that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Respondent is not the licensee of the Complainant, and the Respondent had not obtained authorization from the Complainant. Further, the Complainant states there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and/or services.
As to the third requirement under the Policy, the Complainant contends that a number of cumulative circumstances indicate bad faith.
The first circumstance is the Respondent’s use of a privacy service. The Complainant contends that this is evidence of the Respondent’s intention to evade enforcement of the Complainant’s legitimate rights and indicates that the Respondent has “something to hide”.
The second circumstance is the provision of false contact information by the Respondent. Upon searching, after provision of the Respondent’s contact details following the Center’s request to the Registrar, the Respondent’s address did not exist and the contact telephone number did not work. The Complainant states that providing false contact information is in breach of the Registration Agreement between the Respondent and the Registrar of the disputed domain name.
Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent’s references to “SG” and “Singapore Toto Pools”, and the fact that “SINGAPORE POOLS” is the only legalized sports betting and lotteries operator in Singapore and is well-known to the public at large, mean that the Respondent would have known, or ought to have known, of the Complainant’s rights in “SINGAPORE POOLS”. The Complainant contends that the use of a variant “SGPOOLS” is a “calculated step by the Respondent to cybersquat on the disputed domain name.”
Further, the Complainant states that there has been no actual or contemplated good faith use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name serves no useful purpose. It states that the bulk of the information displayed in the tables on the website displayed at the disputed domain name is fictitious. While the information for the dates corresponding to Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays is “possibly accurate” and corresponds to the 1st prize result of one of the Complainant’s betting products, the Complainant states that the information “is still a misrepresentation of the actual full results of the said betting product. As such, this information is likely to mislead visitors to the Domain Name Website into believing that the other false information relate to the Complainant’s product and services and are accurate when they are not.”
In addition, the Complainant contends that the fact that the Respondent did not respond to its cease and desist letter is indicative of bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to the disputed domain name in order to succeed in this proceeding:
(i) That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) That the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the words “Singapore pools” by virtue of its trademark registrations. While the trademark registrations are for “Singapore pools” in a logo form rather than word mark registrations, the textual component of the Complainant’s trademark registrations is “Singapore pools”. UDRP panels typically assess confusing similarity with design marks by comparing the alpha-numeric components of the domain name and the dominant textual components of the mark at issue. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel View on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 1.11.
Further, as the Complainant was established by the Government in 1968 and is the only gaming operator legally entitled to offer lotteries and sports betting in Singapore, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is well known in Singapore and has goodwill and reputation in the name “Singapore pools” extending beyond its trademark registrations. The Complainant had been operating for 46 years at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. This is because the Panel accepts that “SG” is a well-known and well-established abbreviation for Singapore so that the disputed domain name reads as “Singapore Pools”. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gtld”) “.net” is insufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied in favor of the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
(i) That before notice of the dispute, the respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to a disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) That the respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it had acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) That the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
The overall burden of proof for establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name lies with the Complainant.
The Complainant states, and the Panel accepts, that there is no relationship between the Complainant and Respondent and in particular the Complainant has not licensed its rights in its trademarks to the Respondent.
The Complainant has shown that it is the only entity legally entitled to offer lotteries and sports betting in Singapore. The Complainant’s website explains that Singapore Pools was established by the Government and that it “provides a safe outlet for gamblers, and to neutralize the syndicates and their illegal activities.” The Complainant’s role as the only legal provider of gambling products in Singapore means that the Respondent’s display of “toto” results on the website available at the disputed domain name cannot be a “legitimate” use of the disputed domain name.
In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the burden of showing a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, and in the absence of any response from the Respondent, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied in favor of the Complainant. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, are evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith:
(i) Circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) That the respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) That the respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) That by using the disputed domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.
The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith for the following reasons:
(i) At the time of registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights in the trademarks and trading name “Singapore pools”. This is because of the Complainant’s status as the only entity authorized to offer sports betting and lotteries in Singapore. The Respondent is clearly familiar with Singapore as shown through use of ‘sg’ in the disputed domain name, being the well-established abbreviation for Singapore. Use of the word “pools” in the disputed domain name shows that upon registration the Respondent had some awareness of or familiarity with gambling. In these circumstances it is not feasible that the Respondent would not have known of the Complainant’s status as the only provider of sports betting and lotteries in Singapore. As stated above, the Complainant had had that status for 46 years when the disputed domain name was registered.
(ii) Further, paragraph 2 of the UDRP puts a burden on registrants where it states “By applying to register a domain name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name registration, you hereby represent and warrant to us that … to your knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of a third party … it is your responsibility to determine whether your domain name infringes or violates someone else’s rights.” The most cursory search prior to the Respondent registering the disputed domain name would have instantly revealed the Complainant and its trademark. Even just searching for “betting pools” on Google brings up the Complainant’s website within the first page of results. See in this regard paragraph 3.4 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
(iii) The provision of false contact information by the Respondent is also indicative of registration in bad faith.
The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith for the following reasons:
(i) Upon visiting the website at the disputed domain name, the Internet user is presented with a pop up that reads “MARINA BAY SANDS POOLS Live Draw Result Everyday”. If clicked on, the pop up links to the domain name . The website displayed at that domain name provides 4D game results and suggests that users can take part in pools as it states “Live draw Marina Bay Sands Pools will be open everyday.” It therefore appears to be a competitor of the Complainant offering lotteries, yet the Complainant is the only entity legally entitled to offer lotteries in Singapore.
The Respondent is therefore using the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to another online location () by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that online location. There is presumably some financial motivation for this on the part of the Respondent.
Internet users who are looking for the Complainant may visit the disputed domain name, and believe that the disputed domain name, and therefore , is somehow related to the Complainant when that is not the case. This may result in Internet users attempting to claim prizes from the Respondent or through , therefore disrupting the business of the Complainant.
(ii) The website available at the disputed domain name displays “4D Singapore Toto Pools” results which are, for the most part, fictitious. The Respondent is therefore using the disputed domain name to confuse or mislead Internet users as to the results of “Toto” and 4D pools. As already mentioned, the Complainant is the only entity legally entitled to offer sports betting and lotteries in Singapore, so Internet users will automatically assume that the Respondent’s results come from or are authorized by the Complainant. Participants in Toto bets may, for instance, erroneously rely on the Respondent’s incorrect draw results and not claim prizes that they may otherwise be entitled to.
(iii) The Complainant states that a limited number of the results displayed on the website at the disputed domain name do correspond with the Complainant’s results. This will further confuse Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name, and are associated with the Complainant.
(iv) The website title for the site displayed at the disputed domain name is “S | Toto Lottery Singapore Pools | 4D Result Singapore | 4D Result SGP”. This shows that although the disputed domain name uses “SG” instead of the full word “Singapore”, the Respondent intends to actively associate the site with the Complainant. Similarly metatags on the website hosted at the disputed domain name state amongst other things “Singapore pools”. A further metatag states “SG is one of 4D Toto Lottery Singapore Result.” Both of these show an intent to associate the disputed domain name with the Complainant.
(v) Further, the Respondent has continued to update the website displayed at the disputed domain name after receiving the Complainant’s cease and desist letter. The most recent “Toto” Pools Result on the website is from March 21, 2016.
(vi) The Panel is also entitled to draw adverse inferences from the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied in favor of the Complainant.
The Panel does not consider that the Respondent’s use of a privacy service, on its own, demonstrates registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. This is because there are a number of reasons why a registrant might use a privacy service. See in this regard WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.9. 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.
Andrew Brown Q.C.
Sole Panelist
Date: March 23, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy