The Complainant is Navasard Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Giorgos Landas LLC, Cyprus.
The Respondent is Gal Gadot of Taichung, Taiwan Province of China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 10, 2017. On March 10, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 13, 2017, 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 April 6, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 26, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 27, 2017.
The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 9, 2017. 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 the proprietor of the trademark 1XBET, registered inter alia as European Union Trademark No. 014227681 on September 21, 2015. The Complainant uses its trademark in connection with its services in online sport betting. The trademark has also been recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 17, 2016. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical with the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant is illegally using the disputed domain name for the purposes of reselling it at a profit. The Respondent is not making any legitimate use of the disputed domain name.
When registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent received notification from the Trademark Clearinghouse of the Complainant’s trademark, but regardless registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was placed on sale for USD 50,000. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, regardless of whether the respondent files a response to the complaint. The first element is that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The second element a complainant must prove is that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establishes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. Consequently, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark.
The Complainant’s trademark is 1XBET. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark regardless of the generic Top-Level Domain “.vip”.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain names.
The consensus view among UDRP panels is that once a complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270 and paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
The Complainant has submitted that the disputed domain name is used illegally by the Respondent and that the Respondent is not making any legitimate use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted these arguments.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent. In light of the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds there are no other circumstances which provide the Respondent with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establishes that each disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has 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 [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark 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 domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business or competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] 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 respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.”
The Complainant’s trademark is recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse. This means that when a matching domain name is registered, the registrant will receive a notification of the trademark and be asked to confirm whether the he or she still wants to register the domain name. In this case, the Respondent proceeded with the registration of the disputed domain name regardless of being notified of the Complainant’s trademark. Hence it is clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has submitted that the disputed domain name was placed on auction with a starting price USD 50,000. There is no evidence of this in the file, but the Respondent has not rebutted this argument. Currently the disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website, generating revenue for the Respondent when Internet users click on the links on the website.
When contacted by the Complainant, the Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant. In this correspondence a price was not indicated, but considering the above findings, it is likely that the price would have clearly exceeded the costs of registration of the disputed domain name.
On these grounds the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered for the purpose selling the disputed domain name to the Complainant for valuable consideration exceeding the out-of-pocket costs directly related to the registration of the disputed domain name.
Also, the disputed domain name is currently used to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
Based on the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been fulfilled. 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.
Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: May 23, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy