The Complainant is Cube Limited of Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom"), represented by Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Li Chen of Guangzhoushi, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , and are registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 17, 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 confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
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, and the proceedings commenced on May 25, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 14, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 16, 2016.
The Center appointed Sok Ling MOI as the sole panelist in this matter on June 24, 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 the United Kingdom. Based on information provided in the Complaint, the Complainant offers an extensive range of betting products and services to consumers on its website "". It specializes in live casino and traditional casino entertainment services provided online. According to the Complainant, its website is available in a number of language variants, including English and Chinese. The Complainant has a significant global customer base. The majority of customers are based in Asia, where the 188 brand and trade marks are recognized.
The Complainant owns numerous trade mark registrations for "188BET" and the numerals "188" on a standalone basis around the world, including the following:
Jurisdiction
Mark
Registration No.
Registration Date
European Union
188
8,390,379
March 22, 2010
European Union
188BET
8,425,324
March 22, 2010
United Kingdom
188BET
3,017,215
November 8, 2013
Hong Kong
188BET
302,702,655
August 12, 2013
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , and were registered by the Respondent on November 10, 2015, some ten years after the Complainant's first use of the "188" numerals as a trade mark (in 2005) and more than five years after the Complainant's registration of the numerals"188" as a trade mark (in 2009). The disputed domain names each resolves to a website with Chinese contents, bearing the 188 trade marks and purports to offer online betting products and services. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant refers to its business, trade marks and registered domain name and claims that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to those trade marks and domain name.
The Complainant contends that given the Complainant's mark and fame, the Respondent could not have legitimately used the disputed domain names, especially since the Respondent's name does not correspond to the disputed domain names or to the numerals "188". It contends that as the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use it's trade mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the 188 trade mark, the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names purporting to offer online betting products and services of the Complainant, is neither a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant contends that as the Respondent is using on his websites, without the permission of the Complainant, the Complainant's trade marks and logos as well as the logos of two English Premier League football clubs with which the Complainant has a sponsorship agreement, there is no bona fide offering of goods or services. It further contends that the disputed domain names have been registered to create confusion and mislead Internet users into believing that the Respondent's websites are in some way connected with or endorsed by the Complainant. The Complainant supports this by saying that the look and feel of the Respondent's websites imitates the Complainant's original website.
For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order for the disputed domain name to be cancelled or transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(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.
On the basis of the evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the "188" numerals by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.
The disputed domain names effectively incorporate the Complainant's trade mark 188 in its entirety, as a dominant and distinctive element. The addition of the letter "b" and the suffix numerals from "0" to "9" does not sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain names from the Complainant's trade mark. On the contrary, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the incorporation of the letter "b" increases the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant's trade mark 188BET.
The addition of the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not impact on the analysis of whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the complainant bears the burden of establishing that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, once the complainant makes a prima facie showing under paragraph 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to the respondent to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following, without limitation, under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
(See Taylor Wimpey PLC, Taylor Wimpey Holdings Limited v. honghao internet foshan co, ltd,WIPO Case No. D2013-0974)
The Complainant has clearly established that the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the 188 trade mark or register the disputed domain names. There is also no evidence suggesting that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or that the Respondents have any trade mark or common law rights in the numerals "188".
The Panel notes from evidence furnished by the Complainant that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to publish websites that purport to offer online betting products and services of the Complainant, despite receiving no permission from the Complainant. The Panel notes that the Respondent's websites prominently display the Complainant's 188 trade marks and logos as well as the logos of football clubs supposedly sponsored by the Complainant. There are also no clear disclaimers on the Respondent's websites disclosing the lack of a business relationship between itself and the Complainant. In fact, on the contrary, the Respondent's websites contained English footer statements that "188BET is owned by Cube Limited registered. Registered Office Address Company Clinch's House, Lord Street, Douglas, Isle of Man…" or an equivalent Chinese statement.
It therefore appears that the Respondent has intent to, for commercial gain, mislead Internet users into believing that his websites are somehow connected with the Complainant, and divert Internet users looking for the Complainant's online betting products and services to the Respondent's websites.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The burden of production thus shifts to the Respondent to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
The Respondent has failed to respond. Since no response was filed, the prima facie case has not been rebutted.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, the respondents have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondents' websites or location or of a product or service on the respondents' website or location.
Given that the Complainant has a significant online as well as social media marketing presence, a presumption arises that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant, its 188 trade marks and its activities when it registered the disputed domain names. This suggests opportunistic bad faith registration.
The Respondent has failed to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated bona fide use of the disputed domain names. In view of the above finding that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent intends to take advantage of the fame of the Complainant's trade marks to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's marks as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's websites. As such, the Panel finds that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are applicable to the present case.
The Panel also notes that efforts by the Center to contact the Respondent at the email address and physical address provided to the Registrar failed which suggests that the Respondent had provided false contact details.
Taking into account all the circumstances, it is adequate to conclude that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third element under 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.
Sok Ling MOI
Sole Panelist
Date: July 5, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy