The Complainant is Evolution Gaming Group AB, Sweden, represented by Zacco Sweden AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / P Jaden, Singapore. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name 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 Domain Name. On June 16, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 17, 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 amendment to the Complaint on June 18, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 June 18, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 8, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 9, 2020. The Center appointed Haig Oghigian as the sole panelist in this matter on July 28, 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 Panel finds the following as uncontested facts: The Complainant, Evolution Gaming Group AB, is a Swedish company with a principal place of business in Stockholm, Sweden. The Complainant, along with its subsidiaries, Evolution Malta Limited and Ezugi, provide businesses with live casino platforms. The Complainant has rights in the following EZUGI trademarks in Europe and the United States of America (the “EZUGI Trademarks”): - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 017363375, EZUGI, registered on February 5, 2018, in classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42; and - United States of America Trademark Registration No. 5,588,722, EZUGI, registered on October 23, 2018, in classes 9 and 41. In addition to the registered EZUGI Trademarks, the Ezugi name has been in use since 2012 within the field of online gaming and casino serves. The Ezugi company within the Complainant’s group of companies was founded by gaming industry veterans and has since provided cutting edge, mobile and web live dealer gaming, retention and distribution solutions to online operators, land-based casinos and betting shops. Ezugi operates nine studios with 20 games, and partners with more than 100 operators globally. The Ezugi brand has thereby acquired a global reputation for cutting-edge gaming and online casino services. The Complainant, together with its subsidiaries, is the owner of numerous domain names containing the EZUGI Trademarks including The Respondent registered the Domain Name The Complainant claims that the Domain Name is identical to the EZUGI Trademarks in which it has rights. The EZUGI Trademarks are included in their entirely in the Domain Name. The addition of the Top-Level Domain “.asia” has no impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the Domain Name and is irrelevant to whether there is a confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the EZUGI Trademarks. There is a considerable risk that the trade public will perceive that Domain Name is owned by the Complainant, or that there is a commercial relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. The Respondent thereby exploits the goodwill and the image of the EZUGI Trademarks, which may result in dilution and other damage to the mark. Secondly, with respect to whether the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, the identity of the Respondent cannot be verified. There is no information that the Respondent trades under a name corresponding to the Domain Name or is commonly known by the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name. No license or authorization of any kind was given by the Complainant to the Respondent to use the EZUGI Trademarks nor is the Respondent an authorized dealer of the Complainant’s products or services. They have never had a business relationship. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any other legal right in the Ezugi name. Further, the Domain Name landing page unlawfully uses the EZUGI Trademarks, including logotypes. The website does not offer any goods or services, and instead, askes the visitor for login credentials. As a result of this trademark infringement, the Complainant contacted the hosting provider and DNS hosting provider and asked them to take down the website, which they did. Lastly, the Complainant submits that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent registered the Domain Name in April 2020, subsequent to the registration of the EZUGI Trademarks. The Complainant submits that it “is obvious that it is the fame of the EZUGI brand within the gaming and casino industry and value of the EZUGI trademark that has motivated the Respondent to register the Domain Name and create a fake website using the EZUGI trademark”. Accordingly, the Respondent cannot claim to have been using the EZUGI Trademarks without being aware of the Complainant’s rights to it. On May 15, 2020, the Complainant issued a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, requesting that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. It did not receive a response, despite sending reminders. The Complainant submits that it is highly unlikely that the Respondent has not noticed the Complainant's concerns and instead has chosen to ignore the attempts to contact the Respondent. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the transfer of the Domain Name may be ordered if the Complainant demonstrates three elements: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name incorporates the EZUGI Trademarks in their entirety. The Panel finds that the addition of the Top-Level Domain suffix “.asia” after the trademark does not avoid a finding of identity or confusing similarity. It is well established that that addition of a Top-Level Domain to the end of a trademark does not negate the identity or confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a trademark, given that Top-Level Domains are a required element of every domain name. (See F.Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e‑dominios S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady,WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 and Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Daniele Tornatore,WIPO Case No. D2016-1302). Considering the foregoing, the Panel determines that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EZUGI Trademarks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the name Ezugi or holds any trademarks in Ezugi. Further, the Complainant never authorized or licensed the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark, nor is the Respondent affiliated with the Complainant. No evidence exists to show that (i) the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name relates to a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Rather, the Domain Name resolves to a landing page using the EZUGI Trademarks, including logotypes (save for the color scheme), and seeking login credentials from visitors to the site, nothing more. As in Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Erhan Kamak,WIPO Case No. D2014-1790, the Respondent obviously knows of the EZUGI Trademarks and is soliciting private information from visitors to the site through the use of the EZUGI Trademarks. There is no disclaimer showing that the Domain Name is not affiliated with the Complainant. Given the nature of the Domain Name, the uniqueness of the Complainant’s trademark, and the fact that the Domain Name does not have any active website other than a landing page that also unlawfully uses the EZUGI Trademarks to obtain information from the visitor, it negatively reflects on the Respondent’s conduct. The Respondent has not responded to provide any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Accordingly, based on the available record and Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii), the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent, and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent has not only used the EZUGI Trademarks in the Domain Name, but also uses the EZUGI Trademarks, including logotypes (save for the color scheme), on the landing page at the Domain Name. It is not credible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s activities and the existence of these trademarks at the time of registration of the Domain Name. The Panel’s finding of bad faith use, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, on the part of the Respondent is justified in light of the following: (i) the nature of the Domain Name being identical to the Complainant’s EZUGI Trademarks; (ii) the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s EZUGI Trademarks; (iii) the fact that the Respondent has only used the Domain Name in attempt to obtain visitor login information; (iv) the Respondent’s failure to challenge the Complainant’s contentions, set out either in the Complaint or in its cease and desist letter. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Name Haig Oghigian
Sole Panelist
Date: August 12, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy