The Complainant is Realm Entertainment Limited of Ta' Xbiex, Malta, represented by Ports Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Domains by proxy, LLC, of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America ("United States") / Alpay Celik of Girne, Turkey. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , (the "Domain Names") are all registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 30, 2017. On October 30, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On October 31, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 2, 2017, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 2, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 3, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 23, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 24, 2017.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on November 28, 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 has the European Union Trade Mark No. 009941139 for BETS10 and No. 009941204 for CASINOMAXI, registered on September 14, 2011 for, inter alia, gaming and betting services. It also has a trade mark application filed in the European Union Trade Mark No. 009941311 for CASINOMETROPOL on May 4, 2011 and offers gaming and betting services under all three marks.
The Domain Names were registered on December 8, 2016 and each have a prominent link to a competing gaming/betting site not connected with the Complainant. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant runs a well known game site at "" where the BETS 10 trade mark is clearly visible and the Complainant offers a wide range of online gambling products and games in a safe and user friendly environment. The Complainant also provides gambling services under the well established marks CASINOMAXI and CASINO METROPOL. It has European Union registered trade marks for BETS 10 and CASINOMAXI and has applied to register CASINO METROPOL in the European Union.
The Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks simply adding the word "uyelik" which translates to "membership" giving the impression that anything attached to these Domain Names is only available to registered members of the Complainant when the Respondent is, in fact, not connected to the Complainant in any way.
The Respondent does not have any rights in the names Bets 10, CasinoMaxi or CasinoMetropol and has no permission from the Complainant to register the Domain Names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names.
The Domain Names are being used for sponsored links to commercially profit by misleading consumers looking for the Complainant. Use for pay-per-click links ("PPC links") is not legitimate non commercial or fair use and is registration and use in bad faith.
The Complainant's registered trade marks predate the Domain Names. The Respondent did not answer a cease and desist letter from the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has registered trade marks in the European Union for BETS10 and CASINOMAXI registered in 2011 for, inter alia, gaming and betting services. It also has a trade mark application filed in the European Union for CASINOMETROPOL in 2011 and offers gaming and betting services under all three marks. The Panel is prepared to accept also that the Complainant owns common law rights in the CASINOMETROPOL mark for the purpose of the first element of the Policy.
The Domain Names in this Complaint each combine one of the Complainant's three marks listed above with the word "uyelik" which translates as "membership" with the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".info".
The Panel accepts the Complainant's contention that people able to understand the meaning of the word "uyelik" are likely to believe the sites attached to the Domain Names offer membership services related to the trade mark used in each of the Domain Names. Accordingly the addition of this word "uyelik" does not serve to distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant's three marks which are still identifiable, respectively within the three Domain Names the subject of this complaint.
The gTLD ".info" does not serve to distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant's trade marks as ".info" is a functional part of a domain name without origin function.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are each confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the Complainant's marks and the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use them. The use of the Domain Names is commercial and so cannot be legitimate non commercial use.
Panels have found that respondent is not using a domain name, containing a registered trade mark owned by a complainant, for a bona fide offering of goods or services if it uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a web site competing with the Complainant. It is clear from the evidence that the Respondent has used the sites attached to the Domain Names to provide a link to and promote a competing gaming/betting site which is not connected with the Complainant.
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not provided any legitimate reason why it should be able to use the Complainant's trade marks in this way. As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent's use of the sites attached to the Domain Names is commercial and it is using those site for commercial gain to make profit from the promotion of competing services not associated with the Complainant in a confusing manner.
The fact that the Domain Names each contain one of three of the Complainant's trademarks shows that the Respondent knew about the Complainant at the time of registration of the Domain Names and throughout use. The use of the Domain Names to promote competing gaming/betting services not connected with the Complainant means that the sites offering such services under the Domain Names are highly likely to be confused for sites belonging to or connected with the Complainant and its services.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services offered on it under paragraph 4 (b)(iv) of the Policy. This is also clearly designed to disrupt the business of a competitor and constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4 (b)(iii) of the Policy.
As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith under paragraphs 4 (b)(iii) and (iv) and has satisfied the third limb 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 Domain Names , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: December 11, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy