The Complainant is Tipico Co. Ltd., Malta, represented by Boehmert & Boehmert, Germany.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America (“US”). 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 25, 2020. On February 26, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On February 27, 2020, 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 March 5, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 25, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 27, 2020. The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 2020. 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 the trade mark TIPICO, registered, inter alia, as International Registration (word) No. 863984 registered on May 25, 2005, for betting services designating, amongst other territories, the European Union and the US. The Domain Names, registered on January 12 and 14, 2020, redirect to websites where they were each offered for sale for USD 990. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark TIPICO registered, inter alia, as International Registration (word) No. 863984 registered on May 25, 2005, for betting services designating, amongst other territories, the European Union and the US. It uses the slogan “Tipico Das Original” for the German speaking market. The Domain Names, registered in 2020, are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark adding only the terms “europa” meaning Europe, and “das original” meaning the original and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” which do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, is not commonly known by them, and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Names have not been used, but have both been offered for sale in an identical fashion on the same website for USD 990. The Respondent has registered the Domain Names in bad faith to sell for a sum in excess of out-of-pocket costs capitalising on the Complainant’s TIPICO trade mark. The use of the Complainant’s slogan “TIPICO Das Original” shows the Respondent has targetted the Complainant in bad faith. Use of a privacy service can also be an indication of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Names consist of the Complainant’s TIPICO mark (registered, inter alia, as International Registration (word) No. 863984 registered on May 25, 2005, for betting services designating, amongst other territories, the European Union and the US), the descriptive terms “europa” meaning Europe or “das original” meaning the original, and the gTLD “.com”. Neither the addition of the descriptive terms “europa” or “das original” to the Complainant’s trade mark, nor the addition of the gTLD “.com” to the Domain Names prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are both confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purposes of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent, a privacy service, is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Names. The Domain Names have been offered generally on the Internet, both on the same website in almost identical listings for the same amount USD 990. Attempts to sell a disputed domain name containing a third party trade mark for more than out-of-pocket costs of acquisition of a domain name may be evidence that respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Domain Names have not been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register or maintain the Domain Names containing the Complainant’s mark. The use of the Complainant’s slogan for the German speaking market “TIPICO Das Original” in one of the Domain Names indicates that the registration of the Domain Names targetted the Complainant. The Domain Names, wholly containing the Complainant’s mark with geographical or descriptive terms targetting the Complainant’s mark, have both been offered for sale for a sum in excess of out-of-pocket expenses in almost identical listings on the same website for the same amount USD 990. In these circumstances, this is registration and use in bad faith. As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith for the purposes 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 Domain Names Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: April 15, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy