The Complainant is Cube Limited of Douglas, Isle of Man, represented by Berwin Leighton Paisner, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”).
The Respondent is Ri Biao Xie of Yun Fu, China / ribiao xie of Yun Fu Shi, China1 . 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 16, 2016. On May 17, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 17, 2016, 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 May 27, 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 June 1, 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 June 16, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 6, 2016. On July 8, 2016, the Center re-notified the Complaint to the Respondent, using additional email addresses connected with the Respondent that had been omitted in the Center’s original notification of June 16, 2016. The due date for Response was extended until July 28, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 1, 2016.
The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on August 5, 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, is a company incorporated in the Isle of Man, and the owner of several registrations for the trade marks 188 and 188BET (the “Trade Mark(s)”) in Europe, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, China, the earliest dating from June 2009. The Trade Marks have been used continuously since 2005 in relation to the Complainant’s online betting and casino services, offered via the Complainant’s website, “”.
The Complainant is inter alia the owner of:
European Union trademark registration no. 8390379 for the mark 188, applied for on June 26, 2009 for goods and services in International classes 9, 28, 41 and 42;
European Union trademark registration no. 8425324 for the mark 188BET, applied for on July 14, 2009 for goods and services in International classes 9, 28, 41 and 42;
UK trademark registration no. 3017215 for the mark 188BET, applied for on August 8, 2013 for goods and services in International classes 9, 28, 41 and 42;
Hong Kong, China trademark registration no. 302702655 for the mark 188BET, registered on August 12, 2013 for goods and services in International classes 9, 28, 41 and 42.
The disputed “.com” domain names were registered on August 27, 2015 whereas the disputed “.net” domain names were registered on August 22, 2015.
The disputed domain names direct to websites that display the Complainant’s 188 trademark, and most of them also display the Complainant’s logo.
The Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain names. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the 188 trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. 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, some of the domain names are registered by Ri Biao Xie and the remaining names by ribiao xie. The Complainant asserts that all the disputed domain names are under common control and therefore requests they 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 disputed domain names registrants are (slightly) different, the Panel on the evidence available (including, for example, that both of the nominally-different Respondents have listed the same telephone number in their registration details for the disputed domain names) that all the disputed domain names identified in the Complaint are registered by the same domain name holder or are at least under common control. 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
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the 188 and 188BET trademarks which predate the date of registration of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant asserts that the distinctive elements of the disputed domain names are the numerals 188, i.e., the Complainant’s trademark, and that the addition of the other numerals to the distinctive element (188) is not sufficient to avoid the risk of confusion for potential customers looking for the Complainant’s website.
In support of this thesis, the Complainant refers to the following decisions:
Cube Limited v. Yanting Li,WIPO Case No. D2015-0853, concerning the domain names , , , , , , , , and , where the panel findings were that: “the dominant feature of each of the disputed domain names is the number ‘188’ which is identical to the Complainant’s 188 Trade Mark and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s 188BET Trade Mark”, and that “the use of the non-distinctive numerical suffixes ‘00’, ‘11’, ‘22’, ‘33’, ‘44’, ‘55’, ‘66’, ‘77’, ‘88’ and ‘99’, respectively, in each of the disputed domain names, does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Trade Marks in any significant way, or otherwise to lessen the likelihood of confusion”.
Similarly in Cube Limited v. Super Privacy Service, c/o Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2015-1325, concerning the domain names , , , , , , , , , and , the panel found that: “each of the disputed domain names, which incorporated the numerals ‘188’ entirely, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s 188 Marks”, and that “The addition of the non-distinctive numerals ‘000’ through to ‘999’ in the ten disputed domain names as suffixes also does not distinguish them from the Complainant’s 188 Marks”.
As well as this, in Cube Limited v. Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot / chongqing c/o Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2015-2206 concerning the domain names , , , , , , and , the panel found that: “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 those character sets are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”
Consistent with the above decisions, this Panel finds all the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel finally notes that in assessing the risk of confusion, relevance has also been given to the use of the disputed domain names made by the Respondent.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant needs to establish a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden will shift to the Respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
In the present case, there is prima facie evidence that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. There is also no evidence available to demonstrate any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent. The Complainant has expressly confirmed that it has no connection with the Respondent and has not permitted, licensed, or authorized the Respondent to use the 188 Marks in any way.
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and has not provided any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain names. Indeed, the Respondent did not rebut any of the Complainant’s contentions. 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 Panel notes that the evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain names are used to divert Internet users to websites which look identical to or confusingly similar with that of the Complainant and incorporate the Complainant’s information and trademarks thus deceiving Internet users into believing that the disputed domain names and related websites are somehow approved by and/or linked to the Complainant. In fact, the Complainant’s trademark 188 is being shown on the Respondent’s websites although the Complainant has never authorized such use of its trademark.
Consequently, based on the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names with 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 consumers familiar with the Complainant’s marks and confuse those consumers 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 as 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 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.
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: August 9, 2016
1 The Panel has chosen not to name the privacy service employed by the Respondent as a party to this proceeding.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy