The Complainants are Dareos Ltd., Cyprus (“First Complainant”), and Dareos Inc., Marshall Islands (“Second Complainant”), both represented by Mapa Trademarks SL, Spain.
The Respondents are Private Whois, Global Domain Privacy Services Inc., Panama / Anastasia Voloshina, Russian Federation; Alexander Strunin, Russian Federation; Natalya Pladzidina, Russian Federation; Nikolay Sharov, Russian Federation; Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Aleksey Petrov, Russian Federation; Ivan Ivanov, Russian Federation; Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd., Belize; and, Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org), United States / Nikolay Nefedov, IT.Main, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 5, 2020. On October 5, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 6, 7, and 8, the Registrars transmitted by emails 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 October 9, 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 October 14, 2020. On October 14, 2020, the Center sent a clarification request to the Complainant. The Complainant filed a second amended Complaint on October 19, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amended Complaints, 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 October 20, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 9, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 10, 2020. The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on November 13, 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 Complainants are two affiliated companies sharing the same company name. They are active as gambling and casino operators. They are the owners of the Вулкан, VULKAN, and VOLCANO trademarks. These trademarks are in use since 1992 and were purchased from Ritzio Purchase Limited (referred to in the following as “Ritzio”). Today, Ritzio is a licensee of the First Complainant with an alleged revenue of more than USD 5.5 billion alone between 2006 and 2010. Matchbet LLC is a licensee of the Second Complainant and provides online gaming activity under the Вулкан and VULKAN trademarks, particularly via a website connected to the domain name Both Complainants own a portfolio of registered word and figurative trademarks for VULKAN, VOLCANO, and Вулкан (which is the Russian translation of “Volcano” or “Vulcan”). The First Complainant owns various International and European Union Trademark Registrations, including International Trade Mark Registration No. 984297, for VULKAN, registered on August 11, 2008, and International Trade Mark, Registration No. 989103, for VOLCANO registered on August 11, 2008 (Annex 3 to the Complaint). The Second Complainant owns various national trademark registrations, particularly in the Balkan countries and the Russian Federation, including Russian Federation Trademark Registration No. 216203, registered on July 3, 2002 (Annex 3 to the Complaint). Whenever appropriate, all these trademarks are jointly referred to in the following as the “Trademarks”. The Complaint involves 81 disputed domain names, which are registered to multiple Respondents. The date of first registration for all of the disputed domain names is between 2013 and 2020, as can be seen below: [1] The Respondents are composed of various individual persons as well as numerous domain name privacy services. Some of the Respondents have already been subject to previous UDRP decisions, decided in favor of the Complainants, transferring the majority of the domain names. According to the provided documents in the case file, the disputed domain names resolved to websites, which offered online gambling and casino services and prominently used the Complainants’ trademarks and logos. Additionally, all connected websites had a common link named “affiliate program”, which referred to “http://perestroika.team”, a website designed in a similar way as the websites linked to the disputed domain names. This website also prominently uses the Complainants’ word and figurative trademarks. As indicated in the case file, the design of the connected websites were identical as in previous WIPO UDRP decisions such as Dareos LTD., Dareos INC. v. Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd. / Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Анастасия Волошина / Алексей Харитонов,WIPO Case No. D2020-0986, and Dareos LTD, Dareos Inc., Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd. and Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Ivenkov Vitaly,WIPO Case No. D2019-1304, hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Previous Decisions”. The Panel has visited all websites linked to the disputed domain names and notes that at the time of the decision none of the disputed domain names are actively used anymore. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainants request the transfer of the disputed domain names. The Complainants are of the opinion that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to their Вулкан, VULKAN, and VOLCANO trademarks. Furthermore, the Complainants argue that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. It is rather argued that the disputed domain names falsely suggest that there is some official or authorized link between the Complainants and the Respondents. Finally, it is argued that the Respondents have registered and are using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Complainants particularly argue that the Respondents must have been well aware of the Complainants’ trademarks, when registering and using the disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Issues A. Consolidation of Multiple Complainants Pursuant to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11, the consolidation of multiple complainants filing a joint complaint against one or more respondents is subject to the discretion of the appointed panel. In assessing whether a complaint filed by multiple complainants may be brought against one or more respondents, the appointed panel should take into account whether (i) the complainants have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants in a similar fashion, and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation. Having this in mind, the Panel notes that both Complainants in the present administrative proceedings are affiliated and apparently members of the same company group. Additionally, their Complaint is based on the same set of facts. Hence, the Panel considers that it is fair and equitable in the circumstances of the case to permit the consolidation, as both Complainants are not only affiliated companies with the company name, but also have common interests. Consequently, the Panel allows the Complainants to jointly proceed with their Complaint. The Panel will therefore, for the purpose of this Decision, hereinafter refer to “the Complainant”, whenever appropriate. B. Consolidation of Multiple Respondents As neither the Policy nor the Rules provides provisions for the consolidation of claims against multiple respondents into a single administrative proceeding, UDRP panels generally apply the principles for consolidation as set out at section 4.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states the following: “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”. Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons,WIPO Case No. D2010-0281. In this regard, previous UDRP panels particularly considered the following aspects in determining whether a consolidation is appropriate: similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ contact information (ii) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (iii) whether the registrants are targeting a specific sector), and (iv) the relevant language/scripts of the disputed domain names. In light of the criteria set out above, there are strong indications that all disputed domain names are under common control. In view of the Panel, the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that at least two of the Respondents, namely Asocial Games Limited and Denis Belov are either one and the same person, entity or network or are at least closely linked to each other under common control. This is particularly indicated by the Previous Decisions, to which these two Respondents were Parties as well. Additionally, it remained unsolicited by the Respondents that all disputed domain names were linked to websites which are more or less identical to each other and furthermore identical to websites, which were already subject to the Previous Decisions. The Panel concludes that that the Respondents must act collaboratively and, hence, accepts that all disputed domain names being under common control. Additionally, the Panel is convinced that in the present case a consolidation of multiple respondents is procedurally efficient, fair, and reasonable to all parties. The Panel therefore, for the purpose of this decision, accepts the case to be dealt with in a consolidated Complaint and will refer, whenever appropriate, to “the Respondent” in the following. 6.2. Substantive Issues According to paragraph 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable and on the basis of the Complaint where no formal Response has been submitted. In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not formally replied to the Complaint. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2007 1228. However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110. It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 3.0. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar To begin with, the Panel confirms that the Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of having trademark rights in Вулкан, VULKAN, and VOLCANO. As evidenced in the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of various Вулкан, VULKAN, and VOLCANO word and figurative trademarks, which, according to the case file (Annex 3) are registered in many jurisdictions, including in the Russian Federation, where some of the Respondents are apparently located. In light of this pre-assessment, the Panel initially notes the following: The disputed domain names no. 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 33, 36, 40, 42, 43, 45, 58, 60, 61, 62, 69, 71, 72, 76, 77, 80, and 81 fully incorporate the mark VULKAN as a distinctive part of the domain name. The disputed domain names no. 23, 24, 25, 37, 49, 50, 51, 57, and 66 fully incorporate the VOLCANO trademark as a distinctive part of the domain name. The disputed domain names no. 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 21, 31, 39, 41, 46, 47, 48, 63, 64, and 65 incorporate the word “vulcan". The disputed domain name no. 1 incorporates the word “volcan". The disputed domain names no. 2, 9, 35, and 73 incorporate the word “wulcan". The disputed domain names no. 6, 7, 13, 38, 75, 78, and 79 incorporate the word “wulkan". The disputed domain name no. 32 incorporates the word “vullkan”. The disputed domain name no. 34 incorporates the word “wullkan”. The disputed domain names no. 26, 27, 28, 44, 59, 68, 70, and 74 incorporate the letters “vlk”. The disputed domain names no. 29, 30, 52, 53, 54, and 55 incorporate the letters “vlc". The disputed domain name no. 67 incorporates “wu1kan". The disputed domain name no. 22 incorporates “vu1kan". The disputed domain name no. 14 incorporates “wlk". The disputed domain name no. 56 incorporates “velcome”. In light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names no. 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 33, 36, 40, 42, 43, 45, 58, 60, 61, 62, 69, 71, 72, 76, 77, 80, and 81 are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VULKAN trademark, as they fully incorporate the Complainant’s respective trademark. As stated at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms would generally not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The mere addition of descriptive and dictionary terms within the disputed domain names does not, in view of the Panel, serve to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s VULKAN trademark. In view of the Panel, the same applies to the disputed domain names no. 23, 24, 25, 37, 49, 50, 51, 57, and 66, which fully incorporate the Complainant’s VOLCANO trademark. Additionally, the Panel finds that also the disputed domain names incorporating the words “vulcan”, “wulcan”, “wulkan”, “vullkan”, “wullkan”, “wu1kan”, and “vu1kan” are also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark VULKAN. Even though these words contain misspellings of the Complainant’s VULKAN trademark, the Complainant’s trademark is in view of the Panel still sufficiently recognizable. Further, it is the Panel’s opinion that the disputed domain name no. 1, < volcan-slots-win.com>, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VOLCANO trademark. Even though, the word “volcan” lacks an “o” at its end, the Complainant’s VOLCANO trademark is still well recognizable. Also, the disputed domain names containing the letters “vlk”, “vlc”, and “wlk” are assessed by the Panel as confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VULKAN and VOLCANO trademarks. The Panel recognizes that the assessment of confusing similarity between the letters “vlk”, “vlc”, “wlk” and the Complainant’s trademark VULKAN or VOLCANO is not a clear-cut case. In such cases, it may help to also consider the overall circumstances of this case. Section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “panels have also found that the overall facts and circumstances of a case (including relevant website content) may support a finding of confusing similarity, particularly where it appears that the respondent registered the domain name precisely because it believed that the domain name was confusingly similar to a mark held by the complainant”. According to undisputed information in the case file, all identified disputed domain names containing the letters “vlk”, “vlc”, and “wlk” resolved to online gambling and casino websites prominently using the Complainant’s word and figurative trademarks (Annex 31 to the Complaint). In view of the Panel, the Respondent must have registered these disputed domain names because it believed that they are confusing similar to the Complainant’s VULKAN and/or VOLCANO trademarks. Hence, the Panel concludes that “vlk”, “vlc”, and “wlk” are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. In view of the Panel, a similar analysis is applicable concerning the disputed domain name 56, which incorporates the mentioned elements of the trademark in “velcome”. Again, the assessment of confusing similarity is not a clear-cut case. However, the Panel notes that section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 includes recognizability by technological means such as search engine algorithms, and that the Complainant has indicated and the Respondent has failed to refute, that the website to which disputed domain name 56 resolved also featured identical design “with Vulkan Marks, graphics, layout, texts, logos, the same set of games”. Additionally, the Panel notes that the registrant of the disputed domain name 56 - Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd. – is also the registrant of 36 of the disputed domain names and has also been listed as the registrant in prior UDRP proceedings involving the Complainant regarding domain names that seem to follow a similar composition to the disputed domain name 56 (e.g., Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd. / Ivenkov Vitaly,WIPO Case No. D2017-1294, regarding the domain names composed by the term “velcome”; Dareos LTD, Dareos Inc., Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd. and Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Ivenkov Vitaly,WIPO Case No. D2019-1304; and, Dareos LTD., Dareos INC. v. Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd. / Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Анастасия Волошина / Алексей Харитонов,WIPO Case No. D2020-0986, regarding Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy with regard to all disputed domain names. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. While the burden of proof on this element remains with the Complainant, previous UDRP panels have recognized that this would result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence in this regard is often primarily within the knowledge of the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or make any convincing argument to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c). In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use any of the Complainant’s Вулкан, VULKAN, and VOLCANO trademarks in a confusingly similar way within the disputed domain names. There is also no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. In the absence of a response, the Respondent has additionally failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. As a conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel believes that the Respondent deliberately attempted to create a likelihood of confusion among Internet users and/or to freeride on the goodwill of the Complainant’s Вулкан, VULKAN, and VOLCANO trademarks, apparently for illegitimate commercial gain, particularly for the following reasons. At the date of registration of the disputed domain names, the Respondent was obviously well aware of the Complainant’s Вулкан, VULKAN, and VOLCANO trademarks. Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith. Furthermore, the way of using the Complainant’s trademarks on the websites linked to the disputed domain names (Annexes 31 to the Complaint), indicates that the Respondent has deliberately chosen the Complainant’s trademarks as the distinctive part of the disputed domain names to mislead Internet users who are searching for services provided by the Complainant. The Panel also notes that the Respondent used various privacy services when creating the disputed domain names. Although privacy services might be legitimate in many cases, it is difficult for the Panel to see in the present case why the Respondent should need to protect its identity except to make it difficult for the Complainant to protect its trademark rights. The Panel rather believes that the choice of the disputed domain names, the content as well as the design of the Respondent’s corresponding websites, rather indicate that the Respondent deliberately opted for a privacy shield in order to prevent an efficient enforcement of legitimate trademark rights by the Complainant. In view of the Panel, all this strongly indicates the Respondent’s bad faith intentions to gain illegitimate benefit by freeriding on the notoriety and goodwill of the Complainant’s Вулкан, VULKAN, and VOLCANO trademarks. The fact that the disputed domain names are currently inactive does not change the Panel’s findings in this respect. Taking all facts of the case into consideration, the Panel believes that this is a typical cybersquatting case, which the UDRP was designed to stop. In view of the Panel, the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith and that the Complainant consequently has satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 disputed domain names
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]< casino-wulkan.website> 2020-09-10
[80]
[81]