The Complainant is Newcote International Limited, Bahamas, represented by Brimondo AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is 霍建 (huojian), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint involving three domain names was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 13, 2020. On March 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with three domain names. On March 17, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for three domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 20, 2020 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 in English in connection with only one disputed domain name On March 20, 2020, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on March 23, 2020. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 2, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 22, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 23, 2020. The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on May 5, 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 a Bahamian company active in entertainment, gaming and gambling industry, with its headquarter in Nassau. The Complainant claims it has a high reputation in providing online casino and sports betting services with various brands, including “BetVictor” and “BV”. Consumers could get access to the service at the Complainant group’s website “www.betvictor.com”. The Complainant has also sponsored several world-class sports events. The Complainant owns several trademarks for BETVICTOR, including, for example, the European Union registration number 009608332, registered on April 28, 2011 and the Chinese registration number 23743139, registered on April 14, 2018. Moreover, the Complainant’s group owns various domain names, including, for instance, The disputed domain name was created on June 25, 2018. The Complainant submits evidence that the disputed domain name directed to an active webpage, which had been used to provide online betting service and promote links to the Complainant’s competitors’ websites. On the date of this decision, the disputed domain name leads to the same webpage. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks for BETVICTOR, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered, and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant claims that its trademarks have achieved high reputation. The Complainant particularly submits that there are no justifications for the use of its trademarks in the disputed domain name, and contends that such use does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and constitutes registration and use in bad faith. Moreover, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name directed to an active webpage that had been used to provide online betting service and promote links to the Complainant’s competitors’ websites, which is more likely leads to the consumers’ likelihood of confusion. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Administrative Proceeding Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. The language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese, and the Complaint is filed in English. On March 20, 2020, the Center notified the Parties that the language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English on March 23, 2020. The Respondent did not make any comments on the language of the proceeding and did not submit any arguments on the merits. The Panel has carefully considered all elements of this case, in particular, the Complainant’s request that the language of the proceeding be English; the fact that all communications from the Center have been sent in English and Chinese to the Parties, and the Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding and did not submit arguments on the merits (while it had the right to do so in Chinese or English); and the fact that Chinese as the language of the proceeding could lead to unwarranted delay and costs for the Complainant. In view of all these elements, the Panel rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2. Discussion and Findings on the Merits The Policy requires the Complainant to prove three elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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. Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the mark BETVICTOR based on its intensive use and registration of the same as a trademark globally. Moreover, as to confusing similarity, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered trademark BETVICTOR, followed by the seemingly arbitrary combination of numbers “188”. The applicable Top-Level Domain (“.com” in this case) is viewed as a standard registration requirement, and may as such be disregarded by the Panel. See in this regard the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.1. Moreover, the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7, states: “in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing” (see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard McLeod d/b/a For Sale,WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name contains the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark, as its only distinctive feature. It is the Panel’s views that the addition of the seemingly arbitrary combination of numbers “188” after the Complainant’s trademark does not avert the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. Accordingly, the Panel rules that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests On the basis of the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel holds that the Complainant makes out a prima facie case that the Respondent is not, and has never been, an authorized reseller, service provider, licensee or distributor of the Complainant, and is not making legitimate noncommercial use or fair use of the Complainant’s trademarks. As such, the Panel finds that the burden of production regarding this element shifts to the Respondent (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). However, no evidence or arguments have been submitted by the Respondent in reply. Moreover, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to an active website that is being used to provide online betting service and promote links to the Complainant’s competitors’ websites. This shows the Respondent’s intention to divert consumers for commercial gain to its website linked to the disputed domain name, by taking unfair advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s famous trademarks for BETVICTOR. Furthermore, the Panel notes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. On the basis of the foregoing, the Panel considers that none of the circumstances of rights or legitimate interests envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel holds that the registration of the disputed domain name was clearly intended to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s trademarks, by using such trademarks to mislead and divert consumers to the disputed domain name. Given the distinctiveness and fame of the Complainant’s trademarks, as well as the use of the disputed domain name, the Panel holds that the registration of the disputed domain name, clearly targeting the Complainant’s well-known trademarks, was obtained in bad faith. Moreover, even a cursory Internet search at the time of registration of the disputed domain name would have made it clear to the Respondent that the Complainant owned registered trademarks for BETVICTOR and used these extensively. In the Panel’s view, the preceding elements clearly establish the bad faith of the Respondent in registering the disputed domain name. As to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, it directs to a website that is being used to provide online betting service and promote links to the Complainant’s competitors’ websites for commercial gain, which indicates the intention to use the Complainant’s trademarks and reputation to attract Internet users for the Respondent’s commercial gain. The Panel has reviewed all elements of this case, and in particular: the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks, the fame of the Complainant’s trademarks, and the fact that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used to provide identical or similar services as the Complainant’s core services and divert the consumers to the Complainant’s competitors’ websites, for commercial gain. On the basis of the foregoing elements, the Panel rules that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent has used, and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Finally, the Respondent failed to provide any response or evidence to establish its good faith or absence of bad faith. The Panel therefore rules that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third element under 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 Deanna Wong Wai Man
Sole Panelist
Date: May 19, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy