The Complainant is Navasard Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Giorgos Landas LLC, Cyprus.
The Respondent is Vladislav of Donetsk, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and (the "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 December 6, 2017. The Center sent its verification request to the Registrar the same day. The Registrar replied the same day confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details held on its database. The Registrar also confirmed that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP") applies, that a Lock had been applied to the Domain Names and would remain in place during this proceeding until expiry of the Domain Names on August 16, 2018, that the registration agreement used by the Respondent for each of the Domain Names was in English, and that the Domain Names were both registered on August 16, 2017.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the 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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 11, 2017. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was December 31, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 2, 2018.
The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on January 16, 2018. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules. Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the Complaint complied with applicable formal requirements, was duly notified to the Respondent and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the UDRP, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is the proprietor of European Union ("EU") trade marks for the word mark 1XBET (No. 014227681) and a logo comprising 1XBET (No. 013914254) registered in classes 35, 41, and 42 on September 21, 2015 and July 27, 2015 respectively. The Complainant also registered these trademarks with Trademark Clearinghouse. The Complainant's affiliates provide online sports betting services through websites at "", "" and "", amongst others. The business has operated through the website at "" since 2006.
The Domain Names were registered by the Respondent on August 16, 2017. They are not being used to locate any website. Due to the Complainant's registrations of its marks with Trademark Clearinghouse, the Respondent received a warning notice referring to these marks before completing the registration of the Domain Name, and the Complainant was notified of their registration on September 20, 2017. The Complainant wrote to the Respondent the same day requesting transfer of the Domain Names. The Respondent did not reply. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are effectively identical to its registered trademark 1XBET.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. The Complainant states that the Respondent does not intend to make any legitimate use of them and appears to be in the business of reselling domain names.
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests a decision that the Domain Names be transferred to it. B. Respondent
As stated above, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and (iii) that the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. It is convenient to consider each of these requirements in turn.
In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent's default in failing to file a substantive response. This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are identical to the Complainant's registered mark 1XBET for the purpose of this requirement of the UDRP. As is well established, the Top-Level domain suffixes can normally be disregarded for this purpose. The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied in relation to both Domain Names. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use either of the Domain Names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, and is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of them. Nor is the Respondent commonly known by the Domain Names. The Complainant has confirmed that the Respondent is not one of its licensees.
On the material in the case file there is no other basis on which the Respondent could claim any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. The Panel accordingly finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. The second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel accepts the undisputed evidence of the Complainant that the Domain Names were registered for the purpose of resale at a profit. This evidence is plausible given the lack of any use of the Domain Names by the Respondent and the improbability of any bona fide use of them, given that they are effectively identical to the Complainant's distinctive mark. The Complainant further infers that the sale intended by the Respondent would be to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant.
In accordance with paragraph 4(b)(i) of the UDRP, these circumstances constitute evidence of registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. There is no contrary evidence displacing this presumption.
Furthermore, it is well-established that the passive holding of domain names registered and retained for the purpose of resale to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant at a profit constitutes a use of them in bad faith within the meaning of the UDRP: See section 3.3 of the WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0").
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. All three requirements of the UDRP are satisfied and it is appropriate to direct that the Domain Names be transferred to the Complainant. 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.
Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist
Date: January 29, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy