The Complainants are Jackpotjoy Operations Ltd of Nassau, the Bahamas (Complainant 1) and Dumarca Holding Limited (Complainant 2) of Sliema, Malta, represented by Brimondo AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Name Host Master Transure Enterprise Ltd of Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with A, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 31, 2018. On May 31, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 5, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on June 5, 2018, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on June 11, 2018.
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 June 12, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 2, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 4, 2018.
The Center appointed Theda König Horowicz as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 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
Both Complainants are subsidiaries of Jackpotjoy Group PLC which is the parent company of an online gaming group that provides entertainment to a global consumer base through the brands of its companies.
The Complainants own trademark registrations containing the denomination JACKPOTJOY in several countries, notably:
- United Kingdom (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Trademark JACKPOTJOY (figurative mark) No. UK00002384290, in international classes 9, 16 and 41, registered on December 23, 2005, owned by Complainant 1; and
- International Trademark JACKPOTJOY (figurative mark) No. 1172760, in international classes 9, 16, 28, 38, 41 and 42, registered on May 29, 2013, which designates Australia and the United States, owned by Complainant 2.
Complainant 1 also owns the domain name which is licensed to Profitable Play Limited for online betting and gaming services.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 6, 2017. It was linked to a parking page advertising the disputed domain name as being for sale and containing hyperlinks that direct Internet users to other websites active in online gaming.
On April 21, 2018, the Complainants sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent which remained unanswered. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainants state that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ mark JACKPOTJOY. The typo by which the letter “J” (for “joy”) was changed into the letter “H” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainants’ mark.
The Complainants are also of the opinion that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in registering a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainants mark JACKPOTJOY. The Respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services and the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any other use of the term “jackpothoy”.
The Complainants also allege that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith since the Respondent concealed its identity and data. Furthermore, the trademark JACKPOTJOY is well known. The Complainants finally mention that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith because the disputed domain name is offered for sale to the general public. The disputed domain name is also linked to a webpage containing hyperlinks which direct Internet users to other online locations operated by Complainants’ competitors, activity which generates revenue. Finally the Complainants underline that the Respondent was found in bad faith in over 150 other domain name cases. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, in order to prevail, a complainant must prove the following three elements for obtaining the transfer of a domain name:
(i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have shown that they have trademark rights in JACKPOTJOY.
As mentioned by the Complainants, the fact that the letter “J” of JACKPOTJOY was replaced by the letter “H” remove the confusingly similarity with Complainants’ trademark.
The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy contains a nonexhaustive list of circumstances that may demonstrate when a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. The list includes:
(i) the use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services;
(ii) being commonly known by the domain name; or
(iii) the making of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers.
The Panel finds that the Complainants have made a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
There is no relationship between the Parties, nor any authorization for the Respondent to make use of the Complainants’ trademark. Indeed, the Complainants have shown that the disputed domain name was used in relation to a webpage containing sponsored links to some of their competitors which does not amount to a bona fide use of the disputed domain name.
Consequently, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to rebut the showing by providing concrete evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.
The Respondent submitted no reply to the case against it. No evidence is contained in the case file which would evidence that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel thus finds that the Complainants have satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The third element requires that a complainant prove that the respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. See the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy enumerates non-exhaustive circumstances in which evidence of bad faith registration and use can be found:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) 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 it has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to it website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of it website or location or of a product or service on it website or location.
In the present case, the Complainants have shown that the disputed domain name was connected to a webpage offering links to other online gaming sites. The Panel notes that the respondent clearly seems to be targeting the Complainants’ mark, which is reproduced in the disputed domain name in its entirety, merely replacing the letter “J” with the letter“H”, which are adjacent to one another on standard keyboards. The Respondent appears to be attempting to capture Internet traffic intended for the Complainants, and diverting them to a website displaying sponsored links from which the Respondent ostensibly generates click-through revenue. It is therefore quite clear that the Respondent tried to gain profit from the Complainants’ JACKPOTJOY brand which is used by the Complainants and its official licensee in this very particular and specific field of online casinos. The risk of confusion for the Internet users is thus quite obvious.
Furthermore, the Respondent has concealed its identity when registering the domain name and did not answer either the cease and desist letter sent before the present proceedings by the Complainants nor has he taken the opportunity to present its position within these proceedings.
Considering the above-mentioned circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainants have also satisfied the requirements of 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 1, Jackpotjoy Operations Ltd.
Theda König Horowicz
Sole Panelist
Date: July 27, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy