The Complainant is Newcote International Limited of Gibraltar, Bahamas, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Raod the of Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 13, 2017. On March 13, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 15, 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 proceeding commenced on March 23, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 12, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 13, 2017.
The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on April 20, 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 parent company of BetVictor, and the owner of the BETVICTOR trademarks in several countries around the world. The Complainant also owns the domain name , registered on September 18, 2002, and operates a website in connection with that domain name which offers gambling and betting services. The Complainant’s Betvictor business was created and began offering gambling services in 1946, and currently provides online casino and poker services to customers in more than 160 countries worldwide.
The Complainant owns several registered trademarks for international trademark classes 9, 41 and 42, including the following:
- Chinese Trademark Registration No. 9133980 for BETVICTOR registered on February 28, 2012;
- European Trademark Registration No. 009608332 for BETVICTOR registered on April 28, 2011;
- Israeli Trademark Registration No. 234414 for BETVICTOR registered on April 4, 2012;
- Singapore Trademark Registration No. T1100747B for BETVICTOR registered on January 20, 2011;
- Malaysian Trademark Registration No. 2010024639 for BETVICTOR registered on July 31, 2013.
The Complainant has extensively used, advertised and promoted its BETVICTOR trademarks and services for many years.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 30, 2015 and redirects to the Complainant’s official website operated in Chinese. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that it owns several trademark registrations for the trademark BETVICTOR, including those listed in paragraph 4 of this Decision.
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered BETVICTOR trademark, as it consists entirely of the distinctive term “betvictor”, as well the year 1946 in which the Complainant began operating its business under the BETVICTOR trademark.
Accordingly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered BETVICTOR trademark.
Rights and Legitimate interests
The Complainant submits that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name . The Respondent is not commonly known by the name Betvictor, and has never been authorized or licensed by the Complainant. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in a bona fide offering of goods and services. At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name reverted to an interim site and then ultimately redirected to the Complainant’s official site operated in Chinese at “”.
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because (i) the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant’s registered trademark rights in BETVICTOR, when the Respondent registered the confusingly similar disputed domain name; (ii) the Respondent was contacted by the Complainant and put on notice of the Complainant’s registered trademark rights in the BETVICTOR mark, but the Respondent never replied to that correspondence; and (iii) the Respondent has a pattern of registering domain names that contain registered trademarks of third parties. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark BETVICTOR by virtue of the trademark registrations listed in paragraph 4 of this decision.
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark BETVICTOR, as the word element of the registration has been replicated in the disputed domain name. Further, the addition of the date 1946 (which is the year when the Complainant began providing services under the BETVICTOR trademark) does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not commonly known by the name Betvictor, and was clearly never authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the registered trademark BETVICTOR. Furthermore, the Panel is prepared to find in the circumstances that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its rights in the distinctive BETVICTOR mark particularly when it is associated with the year 1946, which is the date when the Complainant began providing services under the BETVICTOR trademark. The Panel finds that the redirection of the disputed domain name through an interim website to the Complainant’s official Chinese website is not evidence of a bona fide offering of goods and services. Accordingly, based on the evidence filed in this proceeding, the Panel is prepared to find that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name .
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is prepared to find, on the evidence filed, that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s registered trademark rights in the mark BETVICTOR when it registered the disputed domain name on January 30, 2015. The Panel finds that the Respondent registered a confusingly similar domain name to interfere with the Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that the Respondent has therefore registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 name be transferred to the Complainant.
Christopher J. Pibus
Sole Panelist
Date: May 8, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy