The Complainant is Newcote International Limited, Bahamas, represented by Brimondo AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is bo pan, 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 June 3, 2019. On June 4, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 5, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 8, 2019, 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 June 11, 2019.
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 proceeding commenced on June 20, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 10, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 11, 2019.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on July 23, 2019. 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 A. Complainant
The Complainant is a company incorporated in the Bahamas and a provider of online casino and betting services under the trade marks BETVICTOR, BV and BV1946 (the “Trade Mark(s)”), via its websites at “” and (the “Complainant’s Websites”).
The Complainant is the owner of registrations in several jurisdictions for the Trade Marks, including European Union registration No. 016600322 for the BETVICTOR Trade Mark, with a registration date of July 31, 2017; European Union registration No. 016600314 for the BV Trade Mark, with a registration date of July 31, 2017; and European Union registration No. 017678848 for the BV1946 Trade Mark, with a registration date of May 21, 2018. B. Respondent
The Respondent is an individual apparently with an address in China. C. The Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain names were each registered on the same date, March 25, 2019. D. The Website at the Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain names resolve to Chinese language online gambling and betting websites which mimic the look and feel of the Complainant’s Websites and feature prominently the BETVICTOR Trade Mark (the “Respondent’s Websites”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Marks acquired through use and registration.
The disputed domain names incorporate the entirety of the BV Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7) which is, itself, an abbreviation of the BETVICTOR and BV1946 Trade Marks, together with the added 4 digit numbers 0000 to 0009.
Where a relevant trade mark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).
The Panel notes also that the Complainant’s BV1946 Trade Mark also consists of a 4 digit number following the Complainant’s BV Trade Mark.
The Panel notes that the content of the Respondent’s websites affirms the confusing similarity (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.15).
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:
(i) Before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) The respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) The respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain names or to use the Trade Marks. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.
The Respondent has failed to show that the Respondent has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain names or that the disputed domain names have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the undisputed evidence on the record shows that the disputed domain names have been used in respect of the Respondent’s Websites, which websites promote online gaming and betting websites, feature the BETVICTOR Trade Mark, and mimic the look and feel of the Complainant’s Websites.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In light of the manner of use of the disputed domains names highlighted in Section B above, the Panel finds that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. 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.
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 6, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy