The Complainant is Ericius Investments Limited, Cyprus, represented by Parimatch Group, Cyprus.
The Respondent is Harin Evgeniy Vitaluevich, Khabarovsk, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Eranet International Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 15, 2019. On July 15, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 22, 2019, 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 Complainant on July 25, 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 July 29, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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 July 30, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 19, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 20, 2019.
The Center appointed Mariya Koval as the sole panelist in this matter on August 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
The Complainant is the owner of one of the most well-known online sports betting brands in the territory of the Eastern Europe, which exists on the market for more than twenty years. The Complainant has transformed into an international gaming network of more than four hundred business units, its offices operates in Cyprus, Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Georgia etc. The Complainant is an official partner of Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) in EMEA region, official sponsor of Ukrainian, Russian, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Cyprus football, basketball and hockey professional leagues and clubs, providing betting twenty-four hours a day, Live-in-Play betting, current sports news and tournament tables, statistics and analytics.
The Complainant is the owner of the following four PARIMATCH trademark registrations (the “PARIMATCH Trademark”):
- International Trademark PARIMATCH No. 1298964, registered on October 26, 2015, in respect of services in classes 35, 41;
- Russian Federation Trademark No. 536717, registered on March 11, 2015, in respect of services in class 41;
- Russian Federation Trademark No. 613353, registered on April 18, 2017, in respect of services in class 41;
- Ukrainian Trademark No. 178808, registered on November 25, 2013, in respect of services in classes 35, 41.
In addition, the Complainant operates domain names reflecting its Trademark to promote its services, including:
registered on March 28, 2000;
registered on August 13, 2007;
registered on July 11, 2014;
registered on February 2, 2011;
registered on July 14, 2010.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 25, 2016. At the date of this decision, the website under the Disputed Domain Name is active and directs to a website, which displays the Complainant’s PARIMATCH Trademark and logo and where online games and Internet casino are located. The website under the Disputed Domain Name contain the links leading to the Casino Vulkan website “” or other web sites of Casino Vulkan. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it owns the registrations in several jurisdictions for PARIMATCH Trademark, which is one of the most recognized online sports betting brands in the territory of Eastern Europe, that are working for more than 25 years. The Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the word part of the Complainant’s registered PARIMATCH Trademark before the applicable suffix; the only difference is the addition to the Disputed Domain Name of the generic word “casino”. This addition does not in the opinion of the Complainant suffice to negate the similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s PARIMATCH Trademark.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent is effectively illegally using the Disputed Domain Name for the purposes of deceitfully making visitors believe that the Disputed Domain Name is genuinely operated under the brand of the Complainant and leading them into competitor websites upon attempting to register in view of the following:
- the Complainant has prior rights in the PARIMATCH Trademark which precede the Respondents’ registration of the Disputed Domain Name;
- the website operated under the Disputed Domain Name does not offer any genuine services other than deliberately and illegally soliciting customers;
- the Respondent is not operating in the field of online sports betting, but rather appears to be in the business of selling Internet traffic and “pay per click” revenue;
- the Disputed Domain Name was not registered by it nor by any of its affiliated companies or licensees;
- the Respondent not in any way affiliated with the Complainant or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s PARIMATCH Trademark or to register the Disputed Domain Name or to resell its services;
- there is also no evidence suggesting that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or that the Respondent has any rights in the name “PARIMATCH”;
- the Respondent chose the Disputed Domain Name in an effort to capitalize on the Complainant’s famous Trademark, this could not be considered a use in connection with a “bona fide” offering of goods or services.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and has used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith grounding on the following:
- by using the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent intentionally attempted 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 Trademark as to the source, affiliation, and endorsement of the Respondent’s website;
- the Disputed Domain Name currently leads to a website which features the PARIMATCH Trademark and which copies the old design of the PariMatch website “www.”, but all links lead to the Casino Vulkan website “”. On the basis of this behavior, it can be concluded that the Respondent is luring and stealing the Complainant’s clients, through the effect of confusing similarity. Besides, the use of colors and logo by the site operated under the Disputed Domain Name is evidently identical to those operated under the brand and Trademark of the Complainant;
- on February 2, 2018, February 6, 2018, November 16, 2018 the Complainant sent to the Respondent emails informing of the rights of the Complainant in respect to the PARIMATCH Trademark and has asked the Respondent to transfer the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant;
- the website under the Disputed Domain Name does not contain any contact information and all its links lead to the website of a competitor - the Casino Vulkan website;
- the Respondent after receiving Complainant`s emails, hid its name and contact information in WhoIs, i.e he concealed its true identity;
- the competitors website “” does not contain any contact information, any links to gambling licenses, any compliance conditions, legal entity information to provide services etc. regarding consumer protection laws. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is 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 respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s betting company has been working for more than twenty-five years. The Complainant is the owner of the PARIMATCH Trademark, which has been registered prior to the registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Complainant’s PARIMATCH Trademark is entirely reproduced in the Disputed Domain Name with a combination of the dictionary word “casino” and generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. In accordance with the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8 where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. Addition of such common term “casino” to the PARIMATCH Trademark cannot affect the distinctive character of the Disputed Domain Name and therefore cannot change the impression of the dominant element in it, namely “parimatch”.
In accordance with the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1, “the applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test”. In accordance with section 1.11.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 “the practice of disregarding the TLD in determining identity or confusing similarity is applied irrespective of the particular TLD (including with regard to ‘new gTLDs’)”. Accordingly, addition of gTLD “.com” to the Disputed Domain Name does not preclude the identity or confusing similarity between the Complainant’s Trademark and the Disputed Domain Name.
In view of the above, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PARIMATCH Trademark and that the Complainant satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Based on the evidence provided by the Complaint, the Panel considers that the Respondent, especially being a natural person, does not use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Also, the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s PARIMATCH Trademark or to register the Disputed Domain Name or to resell its service.
Taking into consideration the fact that the Disputed Domain Name had been used for redirecting Internet users to a website, which contains an image of the Complainant’s Trademark, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been used to mislead Internet users seeking the Complainant. Moreover, according to the information available on the website under the Disputed Domain Name the website contains the following text “the betting office “PariMatch” has been providing high-quality services in the field of gambling entertainment for more than twenty years, since 1994”. Such use of the Disputed Domain Name creates strong impression of connection with the Complainant; however at the same time the website under the Disputed Domain Name contains no information with respect to the relationship with the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel cannot consider such use of the Disputed Domain Name as bona fide offering goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Moreover, according to the evidence presented by the Complainant (Annex 3.4) the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to redirect to webpages that contain sponsored pay-per-click links that are commercial in nature. This obviously suggests that the Respondent’s intention is to exploit the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s PARIMATCH Trademark for its own or a third party’s financial gain.
Having considered the absence of a response by the Respondent to the Complainant’s emails and contentions and the fact that the Respondent was granted neither a license nor an authorization to make any use of the Complainant’s Trademark, the Panel finds the Complainant has made a prima facie showing of lack of any rights or legitimate interests.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and accordingly the Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of circumstances that are not exhaustive that indicate bad faith conduct on the part of the respondent, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed 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 disputed domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the disputed 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, the espondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.
In the Panel’s view, the fact that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s Trademark at the time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name is undisputable in view of the Respondent using the Disputed Domain Name to access a website, which contains the Complainant’s Trademark and on which similar services are offered. It may be noted that the website under the Disputed Domain Name contains no contact information, all links lead to competitor’s website.
As a result of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent had the Complainant’s Trademark in mind and intentionally targeted the Complainant when he registered the Disputed Domain Name.
The Respondent has been using the Disputed Domain Name to intentionally attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the services offered on the Respondent’s website. Complete incorporation of the PARIMATCH Trademark in the Disputed Domain Name, offering services, and on-line games on the website, for the purpose of attracting Internet users to the Respondent’s website, clearly cannot be considered as use in good faith.
Moreover, currently the Disputed Domain Name redirects to a website which copies the old design of the Complainant’s PariMatch website “www.” and all links on the website lead to third party’s web-site “” or other websites of Casino Vulkan.
Noting the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent selected and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith in creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s PARIMATCH Trademark and to disrupt the Complainant’s business and brand.
Furthermore, the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s emails and contentions which under these circumstances, also suggest the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. Previous UDRP panels have considered that a respondent’s failure to respond to the complaint supports an inference of bad faith, see e.g. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Joshuathan Investments, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2002-0787.
In light of the above, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Consequently, the Complainant has met 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.
Mariya Koval
Sole Panelist
Date: September 8, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy