The Complainant is Cube Limited, Isle of Man, represented by Farrer & Co., United Kingdom.
The Respondents are tao wang, China; Yucong Yang, DA, China; ting zu, China; qianmei shen (沈前梅), China; wei li, China; zhiqiang lin, Hong Kong, China and China; guangchang huang, China; xiansheng chen, China; ming wang, China; ChenJia Chen, China; GuZhuo Jing, China; ZhuXiaoHong, China; ZhaoTao, Heng Shui Zhi De Jiu Ye Shang Mao You Xian Gong Si, China; ZhaoTao, Tai Yuan Shi Hui Ming Yuan Guang Gao You Xian Gong Si, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names The disputed domain names EName Technology Co., Ltd. and GoDaddy.com, LLC are referred to hereafter as the “Registrars”. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 24, 2020. On March 24, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 25 and April 6, 2020, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses 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 April 7, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on April 9, 2020. On April 7, 2020, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on April 9, 2020. Some of the Respondents requested that Chinese be the language of the proceeding on April 12, 2020. Further email communications were received from the Complainant and one of the Respondents between April 12 and 18, 2020. 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 Respondents in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 17, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 7, 2020. The Response in relation to the disputed domain name <188jbb.com> was filed in Chinese with the Center on April 29, 2020. On May 8, 2020, the Center notified the Parties of Commencement of Panel Appointment Process. The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 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 provides betting products and services as well as live casino and traditional casino entertainment services online through its webpage available at “www.188bet.com”. It is the owner, among several others, of the following trademark registrations: - European Union Trademark Registration No. 008390379 for the word mark 188 filed on June 26, 2009, registered on March 22, 2010, successively renewed, in international classes 9, 28, 41, and 42; - European Union Trademark Registration No. 008425324 for the word mark 188BET filed on July 14, 2009, registered on March 22, 2010, successively renewed, in international classes 9, 28, 41, and 42; - European Union Trademark Registration No. 008449597 for the word & device mark 188BET filed on July 3, 2009, registered on March 22, 2010, successively renewed, in international classes 9, 28, 41, and 42; - United Kingdom Trademark No. UK00003421782 for the word mark JBB filed on August 16, 2019, and registered on November 15, 2019 in international classes 9, 28, 41, and 42; and - United Kingdom Trademark No. UK00003421785 for the word mark JBBBET filed on August 16, 2019 and registered on November 15, 2019 in international classes 9, 28, 41, and 42. The disputed domain names were registered between May 1, 2014 and January 31, 2020, with 19 disputed domain names registered in 2014, four disputed domain names registered in 2015, six disputed domain names registered in 2017, 51 disputed domain name registered in 2018, six disputed domain names registered in 2019, and one disputed domain name registered in 2020. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to either: (a) inactive websites; or (b) active betting/gaming websites which displayed the Complainant’s 188 and 188BET trademarks and 188金宝博 (see section 5.A. below) with a pop-up window, under the title “188BET official website: “www.188jbb.com”, asserting “金宝博永久域名：”www.188jbb.com” (literally meaning: “permanent domain name for Jin Bao Bo: “www.188jbb.com”; or (c) websites which facilitated downloading of 188金宝博 (see section 5.A. below) App. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant According to the Complainant, it operates its business from its website “www.188bet.com”, which provides consumers with a range of betting products/services under the Complainant’s trademarks. It also specializes in live and traditional casino entertainment services online. The Complainant claims to have a significant global customer base, the majority of which is based in Asia, where the Complainant’s trademarks and brand are recognized. The Complainant also claims that its website “www.188bet.com” has achieved a monthly average of over one million unique visitors and has on average over 30 million page views per month. The Complainant first used the its trademarks in 2005 and has used them on its website since 2006. The 188 and 188BET trademarks and 188BET & device marks are the most prominent and distinctive element of the Complainant’s branding and significant goodwill has accrued in the Complainant’s brand since first use. The Complainant has thus achieved a significant customer base for its services. Meanwhile, according to the Complainant, the Chinese equivalent of the 188BET trademark is “188金寶博”(traditional Chinese) and/or “188金宝博”(simplified Chinese). The pinyin of its Chinese equivalent is “188Jīnbǎo bó”, or “188JBB” for short. The Complainant has provided evidence (screenshots from the Wayback Machine) from at least as early as June 2011, indicating use of the mark 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) in connection with its products and services. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights; the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondents On April 12, 2020, some of the Respondents sent almost identical email communications to the Center respectively, contending mainly that: - she/he is the owner of the disputed domain names, and the Respondent in this proceeding; - she/he does not infringe anyone’s intellectual property rights; - she/he is Chinese, and objects to the language of the proceeding being English, thus the Complainant should provide all documents in Chinese; - a domain name is very important to a website, and the proceeding has heavily impacted the operations of her/his company. She/he requests the disputed domain names be released for use and terminate the proceedings if the Complainant cannot provide a Chinese version of the Complaint. On April 13, 2020, one of the Respondents informally replied as follows, inter alia: - she/he is the owner of some of the disputed domain names. She/he registered the disputed domain names long ago and established his own websites, which operate on a large scale and have been used for many years. She/he did not register the disputed domain names in bad faith, and does not infringe anyone’s intellectual property rights; - the Respondents are neither the same entity nor under common control; - all the registration agreements of the Registrars she/he came across for the disputed domain names are in Chinese, and thus the language of the proceeding for this case should be Chinese; - 188 is a lucky number in China, and is highly sought after for local phone numbers, and it is ridiculous for the Complainant to try to monopolize all disputed domain names that include “188”; - if the Complainant cannot submit the Complaint in Chinese, then the Complaint should be dismissed as soon as possible. The same Respondent then sent three other emails on April 16, 17 and 18, 2020, mainly reiterating her/his request for translation of the Complaint into Chinese and objecting to the language of the proceeding being English and requesting a model Response. On April 29, 2020, the Response in relation to the disputed domain name <188jbb.com> was received under the Respondent’s name “qianmei shen (沈前梅)”, contending mainly that: - the Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name <188jbb.com>, and she/he can only represent herself/himself as the disputed domain names do not belong to the same entity. - the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <188jbb.com> on the Chinese website of the Registrar GoDaddy.com, LLC and the Registration Agreement is in Chinese, the term “jbb” is Chinese pinyin instead of English, and the Respondent cannot understand English, and thus the language of the proceeding shall be Chinese. - the disputed domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant did not register any trademark in China, thus the Complainant’s trademark is not protected in China. The disputed domain name only contains part of the Complainant’s trademarks, thus it is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. 188 is a lucky number in China and has a pronunciation similar to the term “getting rich” in Chinese and is highly sought after for local phone numbers. The popularity of the number 188 has nothing to do with the Complainant. Further, 188 is not confusingly similar to “jbb”. - the Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In China, the business of the Complainant is illegal, and the Complainant is not famous and does not have any trademark registrations, and thus the Complainant and its trademarks do not enjoy rights or legitimate interests in China. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <188jbb.com> legally and is using it for legitimate business without the knowledge of the Complainant. The disputed domain name is being used for a navigation website in Chinese which has Internet visitors every day. The website does not use any of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent is making legitimate and fair use of the disputed domain name without intent to misleadingly divert consumers for commercial gain. - the registration and use of the disputed domain name is not in bad faith. The Complainant is not famous in China and the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name because 188 is popular in Chinese culture and tradition. The Respondent’s registration and use the of disputed domain name does not fall into any of the circumstances described under the Policy, paragraphs 4(b)(i) – 4(b)(iv). - the Respondent has requested the Panel to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Issues A. Consolidation of Multiple Respondents The Complainant has requested the consolidation of all disputed domain names in this proceeding, arguing that they are under common control. Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) establishes that: “Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario.” The Complainant submits that although the disputed domain names have different recorded registrants, all of the disputed domain names should be dealt with under one complaint, for the following main reasons: (a) the naming pattern of the disputed domain names is similar across all of the disputed domain names; (b) the registration and contact details contain clear and obvious connections and similarities. Specifically, the disputed domain names under the Registrar eName Technology Co., Ltd. are all registered to the same email address, and the majority of the disputed domain names are registered to the same “gmail.com” address, or very similar “gmail.com” addresses with common alphanumeric elements. Likewise, the registration details for the disputed domain names suggest a clear pattern vis-a-vis the use of similar addresses and telephone numbers; (c) many of the disputed domain names resolve to active betting/gaming websites displaying the Complainant’s 188, 188BET, and 188BET & device trademarks and translations therefor, all referencing the Complainant’s name, business address, and copyright notices; (d) some of the disputed domain names resolve to websites that allowed downloading of 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) App, each displaying the Complainant’s 188, 188BET, and 188BET & device trademarks and translation therefor, and details of alternative URL(s), being some of the disputed domain names listed in the Complaint; (e) the common behaviors of some of the Respondents responding to the Center’s emails of Notice of Registrant Information and Language of the Proceeding on the same day in exactly the same terms, in each case with two emails sent in quick succession; (f) the Complainant believes that these many common behaviors suggest a large-scale and coordinated plan to defraud the Complainant and evade detection and liability, and the Complainant submits it would be fair and equitable to all Parties to have the disputed domain names dealt with under a single complaint. In addition to the above, the Panel further notes: - the emails addresses related to the Respondents’ communications received by the Center on April 12, 2020, are associated with 81 disputed domain names. The contents of these communications are almost identical, in which each Respondent has asserted that “I am the owner of these domain names and the Respondent in this proceeding.” - although no email communications were received from the Respondents tao wang (the registrant for the disputed domain names <188jbbvip.org>, - the Respondent first sent an email communication from the email address “chenbianshui[…]” on April 12, 2020, stating “I am the owner of these domain names and the Respondent in this proceeding.” The same Respondent sent another email communication on April 13, 2020 claiming that: (a) she/he is the owner of some of the disputed domain names; (b) the disputed domain names were registered by different registrants, they are not the same person/entity; and (c) different registrants sent almost identical emails because they had seen each other’s contact details in the emails sent by the Center, and they had contacted each other. Again, the same Respondent filed a Response on April 29, 2020 in relation to the disputed domain name <188jbb.com>. The Respondent reiterated that the disputed domain names were registered by different registrants; however, the Respondent also asserted “please allow me to defend for other domain names.” In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that, more likely than not, the disputed domain names are under common control. The Panel therefore accepts the Complainant’s consolidation request. The Panel also finds that it would be more procedurally efficient to deal with all of the disputed domain names in a single proceeding. Accordingly, the Respondents may be referred to collectively as the “Respondent” hereafter, unless there it is otherwise appropriate to refer to a relevant individual. B. Language of the Proceeding In accordance with 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.” In this case, the language of the Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names registered with the Registrar eName Technology Co., Ltd. is Chinese, while those under the Registrar GoDaddy.com, LLC are in English. The Complainant filed the Complaint and amended Complaint in English, and requested that English be the language of the proceeding, for the main reasons that the disputed domain names under the Registrar eName Technology Co., Ltd. are formed by letters in English language characters and also numerals, not Chinese script; the disputed domain names under the Registrar GoDaddy.com, LLC are under the Registration Agreements in English; and that it would not be fair and equitable for the Complainant to bear the extra costs and delays in submitting a Chinese translation. The Respondent requested a translation of the Complaint into Chinese and objected to the language of the proceeding being English. The Respondent further asserted that it registered the disputed domain names on the Chinese website of the Registrar GoDaddy.com, LLC, therefore, the language of the Registration Agreements is in Chinese. Considering the following and section 4.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the Panel sees no reasons to request the Complainant to translate the Complaint and amended Complaint into Chinese: (a) The Panel has decided that all disputed domain names are under common control; (b) The Registrar GoDaddy.com, LLC has specifically confirmed to the Center that the language of the Registrant Agreements for the disputed domain names registered with it is in English; (c) The Respondent has been notified of each step of the proceeding in both English and Chinese; (d) The Response shows that the Respondent appears to understand the Complaint and amended Complaint in English; (e) The Panel is familiar with both English and Chinese. Accordingly, the Panel has decided that the language of the proceeding shall be in English and shall proceed with a decision in English. Nevertheless, the Panel accepted and fully considered all email communications from the Respondent presented in Chinese as well as the Response filed in Chinese. 6.2. Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Respondent “qianmei shen (沈前梅)” filed a Response in relation to the disputed domain name <188jbb.com>. She/he claims that the Complainant has no trademark registrations in China. The Panel notes that the Complainant has had its 188, 188 BET and 188BET & device mark registered as early as back in 2010 with the European Union, and also had JBB and JBBBET registered with the United Kingdom in 2019. The Panel holds that this satisfies the requirement that the Complainant had valid rights and legitimate interests in the 188, 188 BET, 188 BET & device, JBB and JBBBET trademarks consistent with section 1.1.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, whereas: “Noting in particular the global nature of the Internet and Domain Name System, the jurisdiction(s) where the trademark is valid is not considered relevant to panel assessment under the first element. Also, the goods and/or services for which the mark is registered or used in commerce, the filing/priority date, date of registration, and date of claimed first use, are not considered relevant to the first element test. These factors may however bear on a panel’s further substantive determination under the second and third elements.” Therefore, the Complainant has established rights in the trademarks 188, 188BET, 188BET & device, JBB, and JBBBET for the purpose of the Policy. The disputed domain names all incorporate one or more of the afore-mentioned trademarks in addition to either a numerical or descriptive term or letter(s). Disputed Domain Names Trademark Numerical / Descriptive Terms / Letter(s) 111jbb.com JBB 111 118jbb.com JBB 118 188006.com 188 006 188379550645904.com 188 379550645904 18839042892275748584-188jbb.com 188 / JBB 39042892275748584- 1884948593965.com 188 4948593965 18849549595949.com 188 49549595949 1885038450384058395.com 188 5038450384058395 188933.com 188 933 188jbb.com 188 / JBB N/A 188jbb.xyz 188 / JBB N/A 188jbbag.com 188 / JBB ag 188jbbdh.com 188 / JBB dh 188jbbdhw.com 188 / JBB dhw 188jbbvip.org 188 / JBB vip 188jbbzx.com 188 / JBB zx 222jbb.com JBB 222 333jbb.com JBB 333 444jbb.com JBB 444 555jbb.com JBB 555 666jbb.com JBB 666 777jbb.com JBB 777 999jbb.com JBB 999 a188jbb.com 188 / JBB a aaa188jbb.com 188 / JBB aaa b188jbb.com 188 / JBB b bbb188jbb.com 188 / JBB bbb c188jbb.com 188 / JBB c ccc188jbb.com 188 / JBB ccc d188jbb.com 188 / JBB d ddd188jbb.com 188 / JBB ddd e188jbb.com 188 / JBB e eee188jbb.com 188 / JBB eee f188jbb.com 188 / JBB f fff188jbb.com 188 / JBB fff g188jbb.com 188 / JBB g ggg188jbb.com 188 / JBB ggg h188jbb.com 188 / JBB h hhh188jbb.com 188 / JBB hhh iii188jbb.com 188 / JBB iii j188jbb.com 188 / JBB j jbb10086.com JBB 10086 jbb111.vip JBB 111 jbb123.com JBB 123 jbb2000.com JBB 2000 jbb2017.com JBB 2017 jbb2018.com JBB 2018 jbb2019.com JBB 2019 jbb2020.com JBB 2020 jbb222.vip JBB 222 jbb333.vip JBB 333 jbb444.vip JBB 444 jjj188jbb.com 188 / JBB jjj k188jbb.com 188 / JBB k kkk188jbb.com 188 / JBB kkk l188jbb.com 188 / JBB I lll188jbb.com 188 / JBB III m188jbb.com 188 / JBB m mmm188jbb.com 188 / JBB mmm n188jbb.com 188 / JBB n nnn188jbb.com 188 / JBB nnn o188jbb.com 188 / JBB o ooo188jbb.com 188 / JBB ooo p188jbb.com 188 / JBB p ppp188jbb.com 188 / JBB ppp q188jbb.com 188 / JBB q qqq188jbb.com 188 / JBB qqq r188jbb.com 188 / JBB r rrr188jbb.com 188 / JBB rrr s188jbb.com 188 / JBB s sss188jbb.com 188 / JBB sss ttt188jbb.com 188 / JBB ttt u188jbb.com 188 / JBB u uuu188jbb.com 188 / JBB uuu v188jbb.com 188 / JBB v vip188jbb.co 188 / JBB vip vip188jbb.com 188 / JBB vip vip188jbb.net 188 / JBB vip vip188jbb.org 188 / JBB vip vip188jbb.tv 188 / JBB vip vvv188jbb.com 188 / JBB vvv x188jbb.com 188 / JBB x xxx188jbb.com 188 / JBB xxx y188jbb.com 188 / JBB y yyy188jbb.com 188 / JBB yyy z188jbb.com 188 / JBB z zzz188jbb.com 188 / JBB zzz The disputed domain names incorporate 188 and/or JBB elements of the marks in their entirety, and the addition of the numerical / descriptive terms / letter(s) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademarks. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. As such, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s 188 and JBB trademarks. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its right in the 188 and JBB marks and in showing that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to these marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of producing evidence in support of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant may be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. In this case, the Complainant has established its prima facie case with sufficient evidence, whereas: - the Respondent is neither licensee of the Complainant nor does it have any connection or affiliation with the Complainant for the use of its trademarks or logos; - the Respondent has no rights to use the Complainant’s trademarks (or confusingly similar trademarks) in the disputed domain names, and has not received any consent, express or implied, to do so; - the Respondent does not, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge after a reasonable search of relevant registers, own any registered rights that are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks; - the Respondent is not providing its own bona fide offering of goods or services under its own trademarks, but rather it is seeking to confuse Internet users into thinking each website is owned by or affiliated with the Complainant and hence it is seeking to fraudulently trade off goodwill attaching to the Complainant’s trademarks; - the websites accessible at the disputed domain names seek advantage from the goodwill and reputation in the Complainant’s trademarks for commercial gain by directing Internet users to pages for counterfeit services competing with those of the Complainant which have no affiliation, connection, sponsorship, approval, or association with them; - the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, without intent for commercial gain, but is using the disputed domain names to deliberately mislead or divert Internet users from the Complainant’s website, or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademarks, brand and business; and - the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and the registration and use of the disputed domain names containing the Complainant’s trademarks took place without the consent of the Complainant. The Respondent “qianmei shen (沈前梅)” filed a Response in relation to the disputed domain name <188jbb.com>. The Respondent “qianmei shen (沈前梅)” mainly asserts that: - the Complainant has no trademark registrations in China and that its business is illegal in China, and thus not protected by the laws of China; - the Complainant has no fame in China, and that the Respondent “qianmei shen (沈前梅)” had no knowledge about the Complainant’s company, business or trademarks. As such, the Complainant’s trademarks have no rights or legitimate interests in China; - the Respondent “qianmei shen (沈前梅)” registered the disputed domain name <188jbb.com> at the Chinese website of the Registrar GoDaddy.com, LLC, and the registration is legitimate and protected by law; - the Respondent “qianmei shen (沈前梅)” is currently running a legitimate business in conformity with the laws of China and directs the disputed domain name to a navigation website in Chinese without displaying any of the Complainant’s trademarks, thus she/he has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <188jbb.com>; - the Respondent “qianmei shen (沈前梅)” further noted that the other disputed domain names were registered legally through the Chinese Registrar, and all of the registrants did not know about the Complainant’s business when registering the disputed domain names, and they are also conducting legitimate business of their own, and even if all of the registrants were aware of the Complainant’s businesses, the Complainant’s rights have not been infringed for the reasons mentioned above. The Panel takes the views set out below. As discussed earlier, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the trademarks 188, 188BET, 188BET & device, JBB, and JBBBET for the purpose of the Policy. That said, the Panel would like to point out that, according to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <188jbb.com> redirected to either “www.188jbbdh.com” or “www.188jbbdhw.com” at the time of filing of the Complaint. According to the screenshots provided, both “www.188jbbdh.com” and “www.188jbbdhw.com” were: - using the Complainant’s 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) logo; - actively inviting users to download the 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) App; - claiming that the official website of 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) is “www.188jbb.com”. Given the blatant use of the Complainant’s registered trademark 188 and the translation of the trademark 188BET by the Respondent “qianmei shen (沈前梅)”, the Panel finds it hard to accept that the Respondent “qianmei shen (沈前梅)” had no knowledge about the Complainant’s company, business or trademarks. Moreover, it is more likely than not that the claimed use of the disputed domain name <188jbb.com> as a navigation website in Chinese happened sometime after the commencement of the proceeding. Furthermore, the Panel notes that at the time of filing of the Complaint, all of the disputed domain names resolved to either: (a) inactive websites; or (b) active betting/gaming websites which displayed the Complainant’s 188 and 188BET trademarks and 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) with a pop-up window, under the title “188BET official website: www.188jbb.com”, asserting “金宝博永久域名：www.188jbb.com” (literally meaning: “permanent domain name for Jin Bao Bo: www.188jbb.com”; or (c) websites which facilitated downloading of 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) App. In addition, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that there is no evidence showing that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are evident in this case. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that evidence registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Any one of the following is sufficient to support a finding of bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the 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 the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the 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 domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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. The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances from which such bad faith may be found. All in all, the overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from and exploit the trademark of another. The Respondent “qianmei shen (沈前梅)” filed a Response in relation to the disputed domain name <188jbb.com>, claiming she/he has no plans, and has never reached out to the Complainant to sell the disputed domain name; the Complainant’s evidence of fame only proves its fame overseas, not in China, and the Complainant will not be able to conduct its business in China anyway, so she/he cannot be regarded as a “competitor” to the Complainant; 188 has a lucky meaning in Chinese, and it is not the Complainant’s trademark; meanwhile, the Complainant has no registrations in China for its trademarks; the Respondent did not displayed the Complainant’s trademarks on the website, and 188 is not the Complainant’s trademark, as it is not registered in China. As discussed above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in 188, which was registered in 2010 in the European Union, for the purpose of the Policy, and this trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name in 2014. The Respondent “qianmei shen (沈前梅)” appears to claim that she/he registered the dispute domain name <188jbb.com> because 188 has a lucky meaning in Chinese. However, she/he never explained why to choose “188” and “jbb” together to register the disputed domain name. Further, the website at this disputed domain name used the Complainant’s 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) logo, actively invited users to download the 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) App and claimed that the official website of 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) is “www.188jbb.com”. All these actions suggest that the Respondent “qianmei shen (沈前梅)” was familiar with the Complainant’s business and trade dress. Further, the Complainant has provided evidence to show that it started to use 188金宝博(188Jin Bao Bo) on its website at least from June 2011. Therefore, the Panel finds on balance that the Respondent “qianmei shen (沈前梅)” should have known that 188 is the Complainant’s trademark, 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) is used by the Complainant on its website, and “jbb” could be the initials of pinyin of 金宝博 (Jin Bao Bo) at the time of registration of the disputed domain name <188jbb.com>. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the registration and use of this disputed domain name is in bad faith, which falls into paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The change of the website use after commencement of the proceeding as described under the section 6.2.B. may be further evidence of bad faith. Regarding the remaining disputed domain names, the record shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names (incorporating the JBB trademark only) before the Complainant obtained its registrations (in the United Kingdom) for the mark JBB. Where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.8.1). While the Complainant does not appear to have claimed use of its JBB or JBBBET marks prior to registration of the disputed domain names (incorporating the JBB trademark only), the Complainant asserts that the Chinese equivalent of the 188BET trademark is “188金寶博”(traditional Chinese) and/or “188金宝博”(simplified Chinese). The pinyin of its Chinese equivalent is “188Jīnbǎo bó”, or “188JBB” for short. The Complainant has also provided evidence (screenshots from the Wayback Machine) from at least as early as June 2011, indicating use of the mark 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) in connection with its products and services. Therefore, by longstanding and significant use, the Complainant has acquired common law rights in the translated mark 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) and continues to acquire goodwill therein. In light of the above, the Panel agrees that the Complainant has acquired common law rights in the translated mark 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo), or 188JBB for short for the purpose of the Policy before the registration of the disputed domain names (the earliest registration was on May 1, 2014). The Panel further notes that according to the evidence provided by the Complainant, all of the disputed domain names incorporating the JBB trademark only (save for <111jbb.com>), at the time of filing of the Complaint, resolved to the active betting/gaming websites which displayed the Complainant’s 188 and 188BET trademarks and 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) with a pop-up window, under the title “188BET official website: www.188jbb.com”, asserting “金宝博永久域名：www.188jbb.com” (literally meaning: “permanent domain name for Jin Bao Bo: www.188jbb.com”. The disputed domain name <188jbb.com>, which incorporates both the 188 and JBB trademarks of the Complainant, was registered on May 18, 2014. Considering the circumstances of this case in their totality, the Panel finds that the Respondent had JBB as marks in mind when it registered the disputed domain names (incorporating the JBB mark only), and used them to publish the same kind of content across all these disputed domain names (save for <111jbb.com>). Noting the disputed domain name <111jbb.com> was registered on the same day as other active “jbb” disputed domain names being <222jbb.com>, <333jbb.com>, <444jbb.com>, <555jbb.com>, <666jbb.com>, <777jbb.com>, and <999jbb.com>, the Panel also concludes that the Respondent register this disputed domain name with the Complainant’s JBB mark in mind. Regarding the disputed domain names incorporating either the Complainant’s 188 trademark or the Complainant’s 188 and JBB trademarks, the Panel finds that the Complainant registered trademarks 188 and 188BET before registration of these disputed domain names, and the Complainant’s registered trademarks 188, 188BET and the translated mark 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) are widely known as they have been put into use in the online gambling sector for years. It is therefore highly unlikely that the Respondent, at the time of registration or acquisition of these disputed domain names, were not aware of the Complainant’s trademarks and its business. Many of the disputed domain names resolved to either the active betting/gaming websites which displayed the Complainant’s 188 and 188BET trademarks and 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) or the websites which facilitated downloading of 188金宝博 (188Jin Bao Bo) App. The Panel finds it highly doubtful that the Respondent would have registered these disputed domain names without having knowledge of the Complainant. Accordingly, the evidence demonstrates that the Respondent likely knew of and sought to take unfair advantage of the similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademarks in order to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain. The conduct described above falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Some of the websites associated with the disputed domain names are inactive, bad faith can still be inferred based on the total circumstances of this case under the passive holding doctrine. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). D. Reserve Domain Name Hijacking Considering the above, the Panel finds that the Complaint was not brought in bad faith, and does not constitute an abuse of the administrative proceeding. 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 Joseph Simone
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy