The Complainant is Ritzio Purchase Limited of Nicosia, Cyprus, represented by Sandra Santos, Spain.
The Respondents are Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyP of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia / Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd. of Belize City, Belize / Ivenkov Vitaly of Moscow, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and (the “Disputed Domain Names”) are 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 July 5, 2017. On the same date, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On July 7, 2017, 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 July 12, 2017, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amended Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 14, 2017.
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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 17, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 6, 2017. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on August 7, 2017.
The Center appointed Nick J. Gardner as the sole panelist in this matter on August 14, 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 a company registered in Cyprus and is part of a business group that has been engaged in gaming and casino operations for over 20 years. It operates under what it describes as the “Vulcan”, “Vulkan”, and “Volcano” brand and corresponding trademarks – as to which, see further below.
The origins of the Complainant’s business would appear to have been in the Russian Federation. It has expanded internationally and evidences that its operating revenue between 2006 and 2010 was in excess of USD 5.5 billion). It has more than 2,000 employees, and more than 230 Вулкан (which is written in Cyrillic and which is the equivalent of “Vulkan” in Roman script) and/or Vulkan branded gaming clubs and more than 6,300 gaming machines deployed throughout Europe.
The Complainant’s trademarks fall into three broad types – the word ВУЛКАН in Cyrillic (which transliterates to VULKAN in Roman script, since Cyrillic has no equivalent of the letter “C,” only “K,” for the “K” sound); the word VULKAN in Roman script, and the word VOLCANO in Roman script. In some cases the relevant word is combined with an image (typically a stylized volcanic eruption) but the word remains the dominant part of the trademarks.
The Complaint includes evidence of numerous registered trademarks. Examples include:
(a) Russian Trademark No. 353692, VULKAN, in respect of gaming machines and services, registered from November 18, 2005;
(b) Trademark No. 791038, for a stylized version of ВУЛКАН, registered from September 3, 2002, in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan;
(c) European Union Trade Mark No. 00989103, VOLCANO, registered from August 11, 2008, for a range of gaming machines and services;
(d) European Union Trade Mark No. 00984297, VULKAN, also registered from August 11, 2008, for a range of gaming machines and services; and
(e) Trademark No. 949162, for a stylized version of V, registered from January 26, 2007, in Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Lithuania and Ukraine, registered in respect of gaming, game services provided online (from a computer network), operating lotteries, and providing casino facilities (gambling).
The Disputed Domain Names were registered on various dates between 2011 and 2017.
On the evidence all of the Disputed Domain Names are linked to websites (the “Respondents’ Websites”) which are substantially identical and which in effect impersonate the Complainant’s own websites (see discussion below). In some cases these are separate but essentially identical websites. In other cases a given Disputed Domain Name redirects to a website linked to another of the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondents’ Websites provide fully functioning gambling websites enabling customers to play games of chance for money. On the support page of each of the Respondents’ Websites the same contact details in terms of address and telephone numbers are listed. Three different email contact details are used across the Respondents’ Websites, with one of those three email addresses appearing on each website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant has filed a lengthy and detailed Complaint. The main points it makes are summarized in this section. Where relevant, further and more detailed points it makes are addressed in the Panel discussion in section 6 below. The Complaint also goes into considerable detail as to who the Complainant says is behind the Respondents, other operational companies it says are involved and matters of this nature. For the purposes of this Decision the Panel has not found it necessary to analyze these matters in any detail.
Although the Complainant operates internationally it says that the Russian Federation and several neighboring countries are the “flagship” of its operations. It says there are a large number of persons like the Respondents who impersonate its websites and attract customers who are seeking the Complainant. It refers to various previous UDRP cases it has been involved in. In this regard it draws particular attention to Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Legato LLC / V. Zaharchenko / Jimmy McColin / Chernovsky Vladimir Sergeevich / Domain Admin, PrivacyP,WIPO Case No. D2015-1182 and Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service Inc d/b/a PrivacyP / Denis Belov,WIPO Case No. D2016-2244. It says these cases involve the same Respondents as the present case and identical facts apart from the domain names themselves that were in issue in those cases. It says the reasoning of the panels in those cases should apply to this case.
The Complainant refers to its various registered trademarks and claims that by reason of its activities these marks are famous worldwide. It claims that each of the Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to those marks. It provides a detailed analysis of its arguments.
The Complainant says that the Respondents are not licensees of the Complainant, and that the Complainant has not authorized or consented to the Respondents’ use of any of its trademarks. It says that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.
Similarly the Complainant contends that each of the Disputed Domain Names was registered and used in bad faith. It claims that the use of the Disputed Domain Names infringes its trademark rights. Further, it maintains that it is apparent from the content of the Respondents’ Websites that the Respondents are effectively pretending to be the Complainant, when they are not, and that this amounts to bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent
No Response has been filed. 6. Discussion and Findings Preliminary Issue – Lack of Response
The Panel notes that no communication has been received from the Respondents. However, given that the Center formally notified the Respondents of the Complaint and sent Written Notice to the relevant addresses disclosed by the Registrar, the Panel considers that this satisfies the requirement in paragraph 2(a) of the UDRP Rules to “employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice”. Accordingly, the Panel considers it is able to proceed to determine this case and to draw inferences from the Respondents’ failure to file any Response. While the Respondents’ failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondents’ default (see, e.g., Verner Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp,WIPO Case No. D2012-1909). Preliminary Issue – The Respondents’ Identity
The Panel also notes this is a case where one of the named Respondents (Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyP) appears to be a privacy or proxy registration service while the other Respondents (Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd. and Ivenkov Vitaly) appear to be the substantive Respondents. Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd. is the underlying registrant in relation to all the Disputed Domain Names apart from two, namely and where Ivenkov Vitaly is the underlying registrant. The Panel adopts the approach as set out in section 4.4.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”): “[…] where a timely disclosure is made, and there is no indication of a relationship beyond the provision of privacy or proxy registration services, a panel may find it appropriate to apply its discretion to record only the underlying registrant as the named respondent”. Accordingly, this Decision refers throughout to “the Respondents” meaning (unless otherwise stated) Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd. and Ivenkov Vitaly. Preliminary Issue – Consolidation
The Rules allow a complaint to be filed in relation to multiple domain names when the domain names are all registered by the same domain name holder – see paragraph 3(c) of the Rules. That is the case in respect of all the Disputed Domain Names bar two ( and ) and, accordingly, apart from in respect of those two Disputed Domain Names the Panel finds the Complaint is properly constituted. In so far as and are concerned the Panel also finds the Complaint is properly constituted, and will in its discretion treat the Complaint as a consolidated complaint against multiple respondents applying the principles referred to below.
The Panel considers it appropriate that the proceeding against two different substantive Respondents should be consolidated adopting the approach in Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons,WIPO Case No. D2010-0281, the cases to which it refers, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.11.2) as follows:
“Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario.
Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants’ contact information including email address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., or ), (vii) the relevant language/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue, (viii) any changes by the respondent relating to any of the above items following communications regarding the disputed domain name(s), (ix) any evidence of respondent affiliation with respect to the ability to control the disputed domain name(s), (x) any (prior) pattern of similar respondent behavior, or (xi) other arguments made by the complainant and/or disclosures by the respondent(s)”.
In the present case all of the Respondents’ Websites appear to be identical and all carry substantially identical contact details. Accordingly the Panel concludes that on the balance of probabilities the Disputed Domain Names are under common control and part of a deliberate business plan to seek to attract customers by impersonating the Complainant (as discussed further below). Accordingly the Panel considers it is fair and equitable for the Complaint to proceed on this consolidated basis. Further, neither of the Respondents have availed themselves of the opportunity to file a Response and seek to suggest any arguments as to why the Complaint should not proceed on this basis. Substantive Issues
To succeed in these proceedings the Complainant must make out its case under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove in respect of each Disputed Domain Name that:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Given the large number of Disputed Domain Names involved in this case the Panel approaches this issue by identifying the applicable principles, as follows:
(i) The comparison to be made is between one of the Complainant’s applicable trademarks, as discussed above, and each of the Disputed Domain Names.
(ii) The Panel considers that the addition of a generic or descriptive term to the Complainant’s trademarks in order to form a Disputed Domain Name has little, if any, effect on a determination of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the mark (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman,WIPO Case No. D2000-0253).
(iii) Furthermore, mere addition of a generic or descriptive term does not exclude the likelihood of confusion (PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Spiral Matrix,WIPO Case No. D2006-0189).
(iv) It is also well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, “.club”, or “.promo”, does not normally affect the disputed domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar – see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.
If these principles are applied to the facts of this case it will become apparent that the majority of the Disputed Domain Names fall into various categories, as follows:
(a) Those using one of the Complainant’s trademarks and combining it with one or more terms that is of a descriptive or generic nature in the context of online gambling such as “online”, “clubs”, “casino”, “vip” (an acronym for very important person), “plays”, “gamble”, “slots”, “lucky” and so on. The same is true of the word “azart” which on the evidence is a transliteration of the Russian word “азарт” and means “[gambling] thrill”. Examples of Disputed Domain Names formed in this way are and .
(b) Those as for (a) but using a misspelling, abbreviation, or phonetic, near–phonetic, or aural equivalent of one of the Complainant’s trademarks. Examples are and .
(c) Those as for (a) or (b) but using an obvious abbreviation of the Complainant’s trademark. Examples are and .
(d) Those as for (a) or (b) but also adding a numeral or a pluralisation. Examples are , and .
The Panel considers that all of the Disputed Domain Names which fall into any of the above categories are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks applying the general principles set out above.
There are however a few of the Disputed Domain Names which do not fall precisely within the above categories and which merit separate consideration. These are as follows:
(e) Those which use the term “velcome” as in, for example, , and .
(f) The Disputed Domain Name .
(g) Those which commence with the letters “vc” – there are two of these – and .
(h) The Disputed Domain Name .
In considering these Disputed Domain Names the Panel has in mind (as discussed further below) that the Respondents are engaged in a pattern of behaviour which manifestly seeks to deceive and confuse Internet users into thinking they are visiting one of the Complainant’s sites when they are not. Given that the Respondents are engaged in a venture where they are setting out to confuse it seems to the Panel appropriate to consider the Disputed Domain Names bearing in mind that is the Respondents’ objective. Nevertheless the domain names in these categories are not as obviously confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks as is the case in categories (a) to (d) above.
In considering this issue the Panel has found helpful the reasoning in an earlier case – Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Andrey Lykov / Rosalinda Corporation / Roy Delcy, COUNTSIDE Holding Corp / Registration private, Domains By Proxy, LLC,WIPO Case No. D2016-0633. This case concerned the domain names , , and . The panel found that all three domain names were confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. It reasoned as follows:
“The Panel would not ordinarily consider that the prefixing of the sign VULKAN with the letters ‘ik’ would be sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. In the present case, the Complainant points out that the letters ‘ik’ are a transliteration into Roman characters of the initials of the words in Russian for ‘gaming hall’. The use of those letters, therefore, reinforces the potential for association with the activities covered by the Complainant’s registered trademark and for which it uses its VULKAN trademark.
The same reasoning applies to the second disputed domain name () and the Complainant’s VOLCANO trademark.
The third disputed domain name () is not as straightforward as often a sign consisting of three letters could apply to quite a diverse range of activities and entities. I n the present case, however, the Complainant has a registered trademark for a stylized ‘V’. When comparing that to a domain name, it would normally be represented as a ‘V’. Bearing in mind the significance of ‘ik’ in this context, therefore, the Panel considers that the Complainant has satisfied the standing requirement in relation to the third disputed domain name as well.”
Adopting a similar approach in the present case to Disputed Domain Names which comprise the letter “V” in combination with other terms, the Panel concludes as follows:
- Category (e) Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s V trademark as they essentially provide a variation of the English word “welcome” substituting the “v” for “w” and in effect conveying the message “welcome to V”.
- Category (f) Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s V trademark in effect conveying the message “V club” combined with the generic word “finder”.
- Category (g) Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar as it seems to the Panel “vc” combined with generic references to gambling terms, e.g., “go play”, is likely to be taken as an abbreviation for “V club”.
- The category (h) Disputed Domain Name is not confusingly similar to any of the Complainant’s trademarks. It includes the letter “v” but that letter is combined with other letters in the form “” to form a string of letters which does not so far as the Panel is aware have any separate or obvious meaning. The Complainant has not directed any specific argument at this Disputed Domain Name and the Panel is unable to accept that on a comparison of the domain name to the Complainant’s trademark that there is sufficient basis for saying it is confusingly similar.
Accordingly the Panel finds that each of the Disputed Domain Names apart from is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled for all of the Disputed Domain Names apart from . B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances, any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
None of these apply in the present circumstances. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use any of the Disputed Domain Names or to use its trademarks. The Complainant has rights in its trademarks which also precede the Respondents’ registration of any of the Disputed Domain Names. The Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that the Respondents do not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names and thereby the burden of production shifts to the Respondents to produce evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
Apart from in relation to the Disputed Domain Name (which does not need to be considered given the Panel’s reasoning in relation to similarity above) the Panel finds that the Respondents have failed to produce any evidence to establish their rights or legitimate interests in any of the other Disputed Domain Names. Accordingly the Panel finds the Respondents have no rights or any legitimate interests in any of the other Disputed Domain Names and the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled in relation to them. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Unlike previous cases involving what appear to be in substance the same Respondents, no Response has been filed in the present case. The Complainant says that in previous cases the respondents there have obfuscated the case with excessive material and by introducing numerous spurious arguments. That has not happened in the present case. On the evidence before the Panel it seems entirely clear that the Respondents are engaged in what is in essence a very simple scheme – they simply impersonate the Complainant and by doing so seek to divert its business to themselves. It is not necessary to analyze in any detail all the various factors the Complainant has pointed to. Put simply, the Respondents produce multiple websites which are designed to look like those of the Complainant and which will no doubt entice customers who visit them to gamble with the Respondents rather than the Complainant.
Registration and use of a domain name for such a purpose is a classic example of registration and use in bad faith. It is activity that falls within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy – “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location”.
Further the Panel notes that the Respondents have not filed a Response. Whilst the Panel cannot conceive of any credible case of good faith that the Respondents might have, their failure to even attempt to explain such a case reinforces the Panel’s view. The Panel concludes that no case of good faith exists.
As a result the Panel finds that all of the Disputed Domain Names (apart from which again does not need to be considered) have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Accordingly the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled for all those Disputed Domain Names. 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.
The Complaint is denied as to the Disputed Domain Name , and no action is necessary in respect of .
Nick J. Gardner
Sole Panelist
Date: August 28, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy