Complainant is Cube Limited of Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by Farrer & Co., United Kingdom.
Respondent is Dong Chen of Zhangzhou, Anhui, 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 July 13, 2018. On July 16, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 16, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 24, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 2, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 22, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 23, 2018.
The Center appointed Brian J. Winterfeldt as the sole panelist in this matter on September 4, 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
Complainant is an online casino, betting service, and entertainment provider. Complainant operates its business on the website “”, accessed globally in both English and Chinese script. In particular, the services Complainant offers have a dominant presence in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, China, including where Respondent is located. Complainant owns valid and subsisting registrations for the 188 and the 188BET trademarks and logos in numerous jurisdictions around the world, including European Union trademark No. 8390379, registered on March 22, 2010, and European Union trademark No. 845324, registered on March 22, 2010. Complainant further owns valid and subsisting registrations for the 188BET trademark in the United Kingdom, No. 3017215, and in Hong Kong, China, No. 302702655, registered on November 8, 2013, and on August 12, 2013, respectively. These marks have been in use since as early as 2005.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names on February 5, 2018. Respondent registered 26 domain names of similar format, all of which incorporate the 188 trademark. Currently, the disputed domain names resolve to websites that offer online betting services under Complainant’s 188 and 188BET trademark and logo. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names wholly incorporate the 188 trademark and branding strategy. As such, Complainant also asserts the incorporation into a domain name is sufficient to conclude that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the 188 trademark. Complainant also asserts that Respondent’s use of the trademark and branding is confusingly similar to the 188 trademark, diverting the sponsorship and media presence of the actual goods and services provided.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, due to the several years of priority before the disputed domain names were registered. Complainant also asserts that Respondent cannot feign any legitimate intent or activity in connection with the disputed domain names due to its misappropriation of the 188 trademark and logo, as Respondent is neither connected to nor affiliated with Complainant. In addition, Complainant asserts that Respondent has not been granted a license or otherwise authorized use of the marks in any way.
Complainant argues Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith and with knowledge of Complainant’s services, due to the global reputation of the 188 and 188BET trademarks. To that end, Complainant argues that Respondent’s websites misdirect and “mousetraps” users to content and services that are not sponsored or endorsed or affiliated with Complainant. Further, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names have the sole intention of misleading users who seek Complainant’s registered domain name. In addition, Complainant also argues that Respondent’s bad faith is evidenced by the use of the coat of arms of the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission on Respondent’s website, to whom Complainant holds a license to conduct online gambling services. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states:
“Does a respondent’s default/failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions automatically result in the complaint succeeding?
Noting the burden of proof on the complainant, a respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a formal response) would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true.”
Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD,WIPO Case No. D2006-0340. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally considered to be sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant provided evidence of ownership of the 188 and 188BET trademarks, which have been registered internationally. With Complainant’s rights in the 188 and 188BET marks established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complaint’s mark. See, e.g., B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross,WIPO Case No. D2010-0842.
In the instant proceeding, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s 188 and 188BET marks, because it incorporates the dominant 188 element of the marks in its entirety as the dominate element of each disputed domain name. The dominant feature, 188, is identical to Complainant’s 188 trademark. The disputed domain names further incorporate the 188 mark with non-distinctive elements consisting of two identical letters (“L-L”) in alphabetical congruity. The addition of L-L before 188 do nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. Further, Respondent’s “JBB” pattern of the three-letter arrangement after 188, also fails to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. As prior panels have noted in similar proceedings involving Complainant’s 188 and
188BET trademarks, all 26 disputed domain names feature the non-distinguishable “L-L” and “JBB” elements. See, e.g., Cube Limited v. Yanting Li,WIPO Case No. D2015-0853; Cube Limited v. Gueijan Xu,WIPO Case No. D2017-2514; Cube Limited v. Gang Zhen Xiong,WIPO Case No. D2018-0888. Numerous UDRP panels have considered typo-squatting in a domain name insufficient to escape the finding of confusing similarity. See also, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its right in the 188 and 188BET marks and in showing that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to these marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International,WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on complainant. If respondent fails to come forward with evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the Policy.
From the record in this case it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and the 188 and 188BET marks. In fact, the disputed domain names resolve to websites that contain footer language stating that it is “registered by Cube Co., Ltd. Company” and Complainant’s contact information, without the authorization of Complainant. Such conduct carries a high risk of affiliation, suggested sponsorship, or even endorsement. In this instant case, each disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to be operated by Complainant by using the 188 and 188 BET marks directly on each home page. Without any demonstrable explanation by Respondent, this Panel accepts that Respondent has not made any bona fide use of the disputed domain names in connection with any product or service, and in fact has simply misappropriated Complainant’s 188 and 188BET marks and general website layout.
Given that Complainant has established with sufficient evidence its prima facie case, and given Respondent’s failure to file a response, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are evident in this case. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have 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 your documented out of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have 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; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
In the instant proceeding, the disputed domain names all resolve to websites that feature trade dress and branding that are identical to Complainant’s own website, trade dress and trademarks. Most notably, the websites associated with the disputed domain names feature the coat of arms of the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission, with whom Complainant holds a license to offer betting services. The Panel views this pattern, reproduced across the 26 different disputed domain names, as very strong evidence of bad faith, and moreover as evidence that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter. See Balenciaga v. liu zhixian, zhixian liu,WIPO Case No. D2010-1831; see, e.g., Cube Limited v. Super Privacy Service, c/o Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2015-1325.
Accordingly, noting the failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint or to provide any evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant succeeds under this element 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 names, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , be transferred to Complainant, Cube Limited.
Brian J. Winterfeldt
Sole Panelist
Date: September 18, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy