The Complainant is Evolution Gaming Group AB, Sweden, represented by Zacco Sweden AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is woxses ltd. B.V, woxses ltd, the Netherlands/ Erhan Eryaman, Turkey. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 16, 2020. On June 16, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 17, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response 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 June 22, 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 on June 22, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 26, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 16, 2020. The Center received an informal email communication from the Respondent on June 19, 2020. The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on August 25, 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. Preliminary Procedural Issue. Consolidation of Multiple Disputed Domain Names and Respondents According to the provisions of paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, the Panel has the power to decide the consolidation of multiple domain names disputes. Further, paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In the present case, there are three disputed domain names, and apparently two Respondents. According to the information provided by the Registrar, the disputed domain names As provided in the Complaint, the two named Respondents have the same contact email address registered in the WhoIs and used for all three disputed domain names in the correspondence between parties conducted before commencing the present proceedings. Annex 5 to Complaint provides a correspondence between parties held prior to commencing the present proceedings and containing the Respondent’s own confirmation that both woxses ltd. B.V, woxses ltd and Erhan Eryaman are in fact subject to common control of one single person. The websites corresponding to the disputed domain names are used in the same manner. The Respondent had the opportunity to comment on the consolidation request made by the Complainant but it chose to remain silent. For the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names and corresponding websites are subject to common control and it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to decide the consolidation of multiple disputed domain names and the Respondents in the present procedure. See also section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). 5. Factual Background The Complainant, a Swedish company, together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, Evolution Malts Limited and Ezugi, provide business with live casino platforms. The EZUGI trademark has been used since 2012 in relation to online gaming and casino services. Currently, the Complainant operates nine studios with 20 games and partners with more than 100 operators globally. The Complainant’s group holds trademark rights for EZUGI, such as the following: - the United States of America word trademark registration No. 5588722 registered on October 23, 2018, for goods and services in International Classes 9 and 41; and - the European Union stylized trademark EZUGI registration No. 017363375 filed on October 18, 2017, and registered on February 5, 2018, for goods and services in International Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42. The Complainant owns numerous domain names reflecting its EZUGI mark, including The disputed domain names At the time of filing the Complaint, all the disputed domain names resolved to a Registrar’s free parking page providing pay-per-click pages (“PPC”) with sponsored links related to, inter alia, services similar to those offered by the Complainant. Before initiating the present proceedings, on May 18, 2020, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, asserting its trademark rights and requesting, inter alia, to cease from using the EZUGI mark and to transfer the disputed domain names to it. On June 6, 2020, the Respondent claimed that the disputed domain names were different from the “ezugi.com mark” and that it can transfer the disputed domain names to the Complainant for a significant fee. Further on, on June 9, 2020, following the Complainant’s request for a selling offer, the Respondent asked the amount of EUR 200,000 for all three disputed domain names. All such correspondence is provided as Annex 5 to Complaint and is unrebutted by the Respondent. 6. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its distinctive well-known trademark EZUGI, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain names to it. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions but it sent an informal email communication on June 19, 2020, asking the Registrar why the disputed domain names are locked since it paid for such domains to the Registrar. No further correspondence was received. 7. Discussion and Findings In view of the Respondent’s default, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; The Panel will further analyze the concurrence of the above circumstances. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant holds rights in the EZUGI trademark. The disputed domain names Numerous UDRP panels have considered that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive or geographic term, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) to trademarks in a domain name is not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 of theWIPO Overview 3.0. It is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (e.g., “.net”, “.com”, “.tv”) may typically be disregarded for the purposes of consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark EZUGI, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not hold any trademark rights, license or authorization whatsoever to use the mark EZUGI, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods and services. Under the Policy, “where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element”. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Respondent has not substantially replied to the Complainant’s contentions and has not come forward with relevant evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. There is nothing in the record suggesting that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain names or that the Respondent made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial use under the disputed domain names. The Respondent has used the disputed domain names in connection with a parking page displaying PPC links, promoting services similar to those offered by the Complainant. UDRP panels have constantly found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s marks or otherwise mislead Internet users. See section 2.9 of theWIPO Overview 3.0. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant holds trademark rights for EZUGI since at least 2017 and its trademark is distinctive in relation to the goods and services claimed. The disputed domain names were created in 2020 and incorporate the Complainant’s mark together with the dictionary terms closely related to the Complainant’s business, “casino”, “gaming” and “slot”. For the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith, knowing the Complainant and targeting its trademark. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to a web page providing links to services similar to those offered by the Complainant. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt “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” is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Respondent was using without permission the Complainant’s distinctive trademark in order to get traffic on its web portal and to misleadingly divert Internet users to third parties websites, and thus to obtain commercial gain from the false impression created with regard to a potential affiliation or connection with the Complainant. Further, according to the evidence provided as Annex 5 to Complaint, the Respondent has claimed the amount of EUR 200,000 for all three disputed domain names, thus the disputed domain names appear to have been registered for the main purpose of reselling them to the Complainant or its competitor for an amount well in excess of the documented out-of-pockets costs. Therefore, the Panel deems perfectly applicable the paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy in the present case because there are circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring the domain name registrations to the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names. Furthermore, the Respondent has not participated in the present proceedings in order to put forward any arguments in its favor. Such fact, together with all the other elements in this case, constitute, in the eyes of this Panel, further evidence of bad faith behaviour. For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 8. 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 Marilena Comanescu
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
Sole Panelist
Date: September 8, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy