The Complainant is Navasard Limited, Cyprus, represented by Giorgos Landas LLC, Cyprus.
The Respondent is Vadzim Yushko, Belarus. 2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 27, 2019. On August 27, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 27, 2019, 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 September 12, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 2, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 3, 2019.
The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on October 9, 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 Cypriot company known in the Eastern Europe for its online sports betting services provided under 1XBET trademark. The Complainant owns European Union trademark 1XBET, registration No. 014227681, registered on September 21, 2015. The Complainant controls several domain names incorporating 1XBET trademark, including .
The disputed domain name was registered on June 11, 2019, and resolves into an inactive web page.
The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent and the Registrar without receiving any response. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name is identical to the alpha-string of the trademark 1XBET before the applicable suffix.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was not registered by the Complainant, its affiliated companies or licensees. The Complainant’s trademark is incorporated in the disputed domain name without authorization of the Complainant. The Respondent used the Complainant’s trademark in a domain name to mislead potential clients and preclude the Complainant from using its trademark in a domain name. The Respondent holds the disputed domain name for the purposes of its reselling at a profit. The Respondent does not intend to make any legitimate use of the disputed domain name and there is no actual offering of any goods and services at the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not making any commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Lack of active use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. The Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights, since respective warning notice was sent to the Respondent by the depository service prior to registration of the disputed domain name and the Respondent acknowledged the Complainant’s trademark rights to proceed with the registration of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in its registered trademark.
The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.download” in the disputed domain name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and may be disregarded for the purposes of the confusing similarity test (see, e.g., Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn,WIPO Case No. D2017-0275).
According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that in the present case the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety without adding any other distinctive elements.
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the Respondent provided no evidence that it holds a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant did not license or otherwise agree for use of its registered trademarks by the Respondent, thus here no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875).
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name resolving to an inactive web site (see, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Daniele Tornatore,WIPO Case No. D2016-1302).
Considering the above the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew about the existence of the Complainant registered and known trademark, which confirms the bad faith (see, e.g., The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,WIPO Case No. D2009-0113).
According to section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 from the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. In this regard the Panel takes into account (i) the high degree of distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, (ii) the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the failure of the Respondent to address the Complainant’s cease and desist letter, and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put.
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under 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.
Taras Kyslyy
Sole Panelist
Date: October 14, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy