The Complainants are Ladbrokes PLC of Harrow, Middlesex, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”) and Coral Group Trading Limited of London, United Kingdom, represented by Mishcon de Reya Solicitors, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is InternetPark, Inc of Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with HANGANG Systems Inc. dba D (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 18, 2016. On May 18, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 19, 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 of the Respondent.
On May 19, 2016, the Center notified the parties in both English and Korean that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name was Korean. On May 20, 2016, the Complainant requested for English to be the language of the proceedings. On May 22, 2016, the Respondent requested for Korean to be the language of the proceedings.
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 English and Korean, and the proceedings commenced on May 31, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 20, 2016. The Respondent sent an email to the Center on June 17, 2016 again requesting for Korean to be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent did not, however, submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the parties about the commencement of panel appointment process on June 21, 2016.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on July 6, 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 Complainants are the companies Ladbrokes PLC and Coral Group Trading Limited, both corporations existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, with registered offices in England.
The Complainants are two of the biggest companies operating in the betting and gaming industries, and their brand is widely known throughout the world.
The Complainants have various trademarks duly registered in their name, among them UK registration no. 2004802 for LADBROKES (filed November 17, 1994), EUTM registration no. 10874221 for LADBROKES (filed May 10, 2012), UK registration no. 2147703 for CORAL (October 9, 1997), and EUTM registration no. 5644455 for CORAL (filed January 26, 2007) (the “Trademarks”).
The Complainants use their Trademarks in connection with its services in the betting and gaming industry, both in the United Kingdom and throughout the world.
The Respondent is InternetPark, Inc of Seoul, Republic of Korea.
On or around June 22, 2015, various international news sources reported that the Complainants, who are separate legal entities, had entered into proposed merger negotiations. A few days after this news was reported internationally, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, sometime on or around July 1, 2015.
The disputed domain name resolves to a landing page with email contact information of the owner, as well as the text “Anti Betting!!! for our Spirit!!! Anti big betting site!!!”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to their Trademarks in which the Complainants have rights. The Complainants allege that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainants’ Trademarks, and that the disputed domain name is likely to generate a risk of confusion in the public.
The Complainants also contend that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainants note that the disputed domain name merely redirects to a parking page.
The Complainants also contend that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainants contend that the text displayed on the landing page at the disputed domain name is “a lame and hopelessly transparent attempt to give the Website some legitimacy […] as some kind of protest site”. As evidence of this bad faith, the Complainants note that the disputed domain name was offered for sale by the Respondent for $20,000. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise. In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement is Korean, and the Complainants submitted its Complaint in English.
In adopting a language other than that of the Registration Agreement, the Panel has to exercise its discretion in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case. Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl,WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004; Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng,WIPO Case No. D2006-0432.
First, although the Respondent emailed a request on May 22, 2016 and on June 17, 2016 that Korean be the language of the proceedings, the Panel notes that the Respondent has chosen not to participate further in this proceeding. Additionally, the Panel notes that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves displays text in English. Further, the Respondent emailed the Complainants multiple times in English when it offered to sell the disputed domain name. Accordingly, based on the evidences submitted by the Complainants, it appears that the Respondent is able to communicate in English and understand English.
While the Panel can fully understand the present record in English and Korean, for the above-mentioned reasons, the Panel concludes that it will issue a decision in English.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name be cancelled or transferred:
(i) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainants must prove that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights.
The Complainants have demonstrated that they hold several trademark registrations for the terms “Ladbrokes” and “Coral” which are closely associated with the Complainants’ business activities around the world.
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates both of the Complainants’ Trademarks with the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. It is well established that the addition of the gTLD “.com” is typically without legal significance when comparing the disputed domain name to the complainant’s trademark. See Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Brenda Hawkins,WIPO Case No. D2013-0603; cf., Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,WIPO Case No. D2000-0429; Phenomedia AG v. Meta Verzeichnis Com,WIPO Case No. D2001-0374.
For the reasons stated above, the Panel finds that pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ Trademarks, and the first element has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainants must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In connection with the burden of production, several past UDRP decisions have held that “once a complainant establishes a prima facie showing that none of the three circumstances establishing legitimate interests or rights applies, the burden of production on this factor shifts to the Respondents to rebut the showing” (see among others, Universal City Studios, Inc. v. David Burns and Adam-12 Dot Com,WIPO Case No. D2001-0784; see also International Hospitality Management - IHM S.p.A. v. Enrico Callegari Ecostudio,WIPO Case No. D2002-0683).
The Complainants have clearly articulated that the Respondent is in no way affiliated with the Complainants, and that the Complainants have never authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks.
On the basis of the present record, the Panel finds that the Complainants have made the required allegations to support a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent in the present case has chosen to file no Response. Accordingly, there is no evidence or allegation in the record that would warrant a finding in favor of the Respondent on this point.
For the reasons provided above, the Panel finds that the Complainants have established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainants must prove that disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for a complainant to show bad faith registration and use of domain names. One such criteria which indicates bad faith, listed under paragraph 4(b)(i), includes “circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the 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 trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name”.
The Panel finds that the Complainants have adequately supported the inference that the Respondent’s actions satisfy the requirement of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. In the present case, the Respondent, who does not appear to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, offered to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainants for $20,000. The Panel finds that offer to sell the disputed domain name is sufficient evidence of bad faith. See, among others, Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Allen Jarosz,WIPO Case No. D2005-0361 (“The fact that Respondent offered to sell the domain name registration to Complainant is evidence that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(i).”).
With respect to the use of the disputed domain name, the Complainants contend that the “Anti Betting” text displayed on the landing page at the disputed domain name is “a lame and hopelessly transparent attempt to give the Website some legitimacy”. The Panel agrees and finds that the Respondent’s real intention behind is to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.
For the reasons given above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, and that the third and final element of the Policy has been established. 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 Complainants.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Date: July 20, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy