The Complainant is Cube Limited of Douglas, Isle of Man, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom"), represented by Farrer & Co., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Gueijuan Xu of Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 18, 2017. On December 19, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 20, 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 January 8, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 28, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 29, 2018.
The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on February 1, 2018. 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, Cube Limited, is a United Kingdom-based online gaming and betting supplier, providing a range of betting products and services under 188BET trademarks, live casino and traditional casino entertainment services provided online. Since 2006, the Complainant operates its business at its website "". The Complainant's website is available to its end users in a number of languages including English and Chinese and currently achieves a monthly average of more than one million unique visitors and more than thirty million page views per month. The Complainant first started using its 188BET trademarks on its website in 2005 and has a significant global customer base, especially in Asia. The 188BET trademark is a prominent and distinctive element of the Complainant's branding since its first use in 2005.
The Complainant is the exclusive owner of a number of registered trademarks consisting of the numerals and wording "188bet" in various jurisdictions throughout the world, including, inter alia, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Hong Kong, China, as follows:
- the European Union Trade Mark for the word 188BET with registration no. 8425324 filed on July 14, 2009, registered on March 22, 2010 and protected for goods and services in International classes 9, 28, 41 and 42;
- the United Kingdom word trademark 188BET registration no. 3017215 filed on August 8, 2013, registered on November 8, 2013 and protected for goods and services in International classes 9, 28, 41 and 42; and
- the Hong Kong word trademark 188BET registration no. 302702655 registered on August 12, 2013, and protected for goods and services in International classes 9, 28, 41 and 42.
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and were created on March 6, 2017.
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and were created on March 7, 2017.
According to the evidence provided as Annex 5 to Complaint, before commencing the present proceeding the disputed domain names were used in connection with online betting and gaming activities and on the websites corresponding to the disputed domain names the Complainant's trademark and logo were prominently displayed, without any consent or disclaimer. At the time the Panel visited the disputed domain names' corresponding websites, the disputed domain names were used in connection with online gaming and betting activities but without displaying the Complainant's trademarks.
The Respondent was involved in at least two prior disputes comprising third party trademarks, both solved in the favor of the complainants. See Tumi Inc. v. Gueijuan Xu,WIPO Case No. D2017-1773 for the domain names , and infringing the TUMI trademark; and PRADA S.A. v. Artemis Davis / Mo Zeghloul / Xinqian Rhys / Xiayu Zhi / Gueijuan Xu,WIPO Case No. D2017-2069 for the domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , infringing PRADA and MIU MIU trademarks. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark 188BET, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In view of the Respondent's default, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the 188BET trademark.
The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant's trademark 188BET in its entirety, only switching the order of word and numerals. In addition to this, the disputed domain names contain the non distinctive elements consisting of one or two identical letters, namely a, aa, bb, c, cc, d, dd, e, ee, f, ff, g, gg, h, hh, i, ii, j, jj, k, kk, l, ll, m, mm, n, nn, o, oo, p, pp, q, qq, r, rr, s, ss, t, tt, u, uu, v, vv, w, ww, x, xx, y, yy, z and zz.
Numerous UDRP panels have considered that the inversion of letters and numbers constitutes a standard case of typosquatting and that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) to trademarks in a domain name is not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 and section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0").
Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the generic Top-Level Domain (e.g., ".com", ".info", ".net", ".org") may typically be disregarded for the purposes of consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name.
Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark 188BET, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that it has given no license or other right to use or register its trademark to the Respondent, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods and services.
Under the Policy, "where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element". See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant's contentions and has not come forward with relevant evidence to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case.
There is nothing in record suggesting that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain names. Furthermore, the Respondent is using the disputed domain names in connection with websites promoting activities in direct competition with the services provided by the Complainant under the 188BET trademark and it has displayed the Complainant's trademark without permission on these websites. This is definitely not a bona fide offering of goods and services.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant is using extensively its trademark 188BET since 2005 and it has become distinctive and widely known in relation to betting and gaming activities. The disputed domain names were created in 2017 and all fifty-one incorporate the Complainant's mark with the misspelling by switching the order of numerals and words and the additional non distinctive elements, the letters a-z and aa-zz.
Further, the Respondent is using the Complainant's distinctive trademark in relation to betting and gaming activities without permission in order to get traffic on its web portal and to likely obtain commercial gain from the false impression created for the Internet users with regard to a potential affiliation/connection with the Complainant. This impression is deepened by the use of the Complainant's trademark and logo on the corresponding websites. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt "to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent's] website 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 [the respondent's] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent's] website or location" is evidence of registration and use in bad faith.
The Internet users searching for the Complainant would acces the website corresponding to the disputed domain names considering they belong or are somehow associated with or endorsed by the Complainant.
Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy lists another situation of bad faith behavior when "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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct". As described in section 4 above, the Respondent was involved in at least another two UDRP proceedings involving third parties' trademarks and domain names used for the value of the marks incorporated in these domains, all cases being decided in the favor of the complainants. Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 indicates that "a pattern of conduct can involve multiple UDRP cases with similar fact situations or a single case where the respondent has registered multiple domain names which are similar to trademarks." The Respondent has registered fifty-one disputed domain names comprising the Complainant's distinctive mark misspelled and is using these disputed domain names in order to promote activities in direct competition with those offered by the Complainant under its 188BET trademark. Accordingly, the circumstance listed under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy is applicable in this proceeding.
Further, the Respondent chose not to participate in this proceeding and has not contested any of the allegations made by the Complainant, and did not provide any evidence whatsoever. Such passive attitude of the Respondent can be considered further evidence of bad faith.
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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.
Marilena Comanescu
Sole Panelist
Date: February 15, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy