The Complainant is Cube Limited, Isle of Man, United Kingdom, represented by Farrer & Co., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Tin Vo, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <1888bets.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 26, 2020. On November 26, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 30, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 4, 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 December 8, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 28, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 6, 2021.
The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on January 19, 2021. 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 operates its business from its website at “www.188BET.com”, which provides consumers with a range of betting products/services under the 188BET trademarks. It also specializes in live and traditional casino entertainment services online. The majority of its customers are based in Asia.
The Complainant owns a number of 188BET trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including for instance European Union trademark registration No. 008425324, registered on March 22, 2010.
The Complainant owns a number of 188 trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including for instance European Union trademark registration No. 008390379, registered on March 22, 2010.
The Complainant first used the 188BET trademarks in 2005 and has used them on its website since 2006.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 11, 2017, and resolves to a website with a chat forum related to the Complainant and its brand, and also containing links to the services of the Complainant’s competitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant’s trademarks are recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the non-distinctive numeral, 8, appearing after the numerals 188 and the non-distinctive letter “s” after the word “bet” respectively does nothing to minimize the risk of confusion to potential customers associating it with the Complainant and/or its trademarks. The Respondent is engaged in typosquatting and has deliberately introduced slight deviations to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither a licensee of the Complainant nor does it have any connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever for use of its trademarks. The Respondent is not known by nor does it have a common association with the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name redirects to a webpage featuring the Complainant’s trademarks and masquerades as being connected, affiliated, and/or endorsed by the Complainant. The Respondent is not providing its own bona fide goods/services under its own trademarks. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain, but is using it to deliberately mislead and/or divert Internet users from the Complainant’s website, or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademarks, brand and business.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent knew of the Complainant’s prior trademark rights before registering the disputed domain name. The registration of the disputed domain name through the Respondent as a proxy agent confirms the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is in bad faith, due to attempt to conceal his/her true identity. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with the intention of confusing Internet users into thinking they are being re-directed to a website owned by the Complainant, or affiliated to the Complainant’s business for the Respondent’s own commercial gain. The Respondent has not offered, on the website from which the disputed domain name directs, any statement indicating the Respondent and/or its website lack affiliation with the Complainant and/or its trademarks. The Respondent has clearly and intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, consumers by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and/or endorsement of the Respondent’s website and the services available from that website. The Respondent has sought to disrupt the business of the Complainant by registering the disputed domain name, with the intent to fraudulently and intentionally mislead consumers, diverting them to a website displaying the Complainant’s trademarks, but is in no way connected to, or endorsed by the Complainant. No plausible actual or contemplated use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent could be legitimate. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”) the applicable generic Top-Level Domain “gTLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Thus, the Panel disregards gTLD “.com” for the purposes of the confusing similarity test.
According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s trademark 188 in its entirety.
According to section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. The Panel considers the disputed domain name consisting of intentional misspelling (adding not a letter but another “8”) of the Complainant’s trademark 188BET.
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has established, given the facts and arguments set out above, a prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the Respondent provided no evidence that it holds a right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which could demonstrate its right or legitimate interest (see, e.g., World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe,WIPO Case No. D2008-0642).
The Complainant did not license or otherwise agree for use of its prior registered trademarks by the Respondent, thus no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong,WIPOCase No. D2014-1875).
The Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name on a website offering links to overlapping products and services is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy. (See, e.g., Option One Mortgage Corporation v. Option One Lending,WIPO Case No. D2004-1052).
Considering the above the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
At the time of the registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew, or at least should have known about the existence of the Complainant’s prior registered and known trademark, which confirms the bad faith (see, e.g., The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,WIPO Case No. D2009-0113).
According to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. The Panel is convinced that the Complainant’s trademark is well established through long and widespread use and the Complainant has acquired a significant reputation and a level of goodwill in its trademarks internationally; indeed there is no other reason for the registration of the disputed domain name other than to target the Complainant and its marks. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark was registered in bad faith.
According to section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. To facilitate assessment of whether this has occurred, and bearing in mind that the burden of proof rests with the complainant, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that any one of the following non-exclusive scenarios constitutes evidence of a respondent’s 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 to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that 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 on-line 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.
In this regard, the Panel finds that at least the fourth of the above scenarios apply to the present case confirming the Respondent’s bad faith.
Moreover, the Respondent used a privacy service to register the disputed domain name. According to section 3.6 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the use of a privacy or proxy service merely to avoid being notified of a UDRP proceeding, may support an inference of bad faith; a respondent filing a response may refute such inference. However, no such response was provided by the Respondent. The Panel finds that such use of the privacy service here confirms registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under 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 name, <1888bets.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Taras Kyslyy
Sole Panelist
Date: February 2, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy