The Complainant is Dareos Ltd., Cyprus and Dareos Inc., Marshall Islands, represented by Mapa Trademarks SL, Spain.
The Respondent is Moniker Privacy Services, United States of America / Inna Feshchuk, Ukraine / Tatiana Deduch, Russian Federation / Natalia Zelenina, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names <24wylckan-gold.com >, The disputed domain names The above registrars are referred to below as the “Registrars”. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 14, 2020. On December 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to each of the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 15, December 16, and December 28, 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 December 30, 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 on December 30, 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 January 11, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 31, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 1, 2021. The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on February 10, 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 For reasons explained in section 6A below, the Panel refers to the Complainants and the Respondents as “the Complainant” and “the Respondent” unless it is necessary to refer to them separately. Since 1992, the Complainant and its predecessors have offered gaming, casino and entertainment services, both online and offline, under the brands ВУЛКАН, VULKAN, and VOLCANO (the latter two being English translations/transliterations of the Russian word “Вулкан”). The Complainant operates some 6,300 gaming machines in over 230 gaming clubs throughout Europe and has more than 2,000 employees. The Complainant owns many trade marks including international registrations for: - a device mark featuring the Russian word “Вулкан” in a distinctive design with stars behind the word and a prominent stylised reversed “V”, no. 791038 registered on September 3, 2002, in class 41; - a device mark featuring the letter “V”, no. 949162 registered on January 26, 2007, in classes 3, 9, 16, 18, 21, 24-28, 30-39, 41-43, and 45; - the stylised word “Vulkan”, no. 984297, registered on August 11, 2008 in classes 9, 16, 21, 28, 32, 35, 38-39, 41-43, and 45; and - the stylised word “Volcano”, no. 989103 registered on August 11, 2008, in classes 9, 16, 21, 25, 28, 35, 38-39, 41-43, and 45. The disputed domain names were registered on various dates between February 17, 2017, and December 20, 2019. The disputed domain names have all been used for identical gambling websites branded with a version of the Complainant’s ВУЛКАН logo plus the number 24 superimposed and utilising trading names such as “Vulkan 24 Casino” and “Club 24 Volcano”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The following is a summary of the Complainant’s contentions. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks in that they include the words “volcano” or “vulkan” or misspellings or abbreviations thereof and/or add numbers and/or generic terms thereto. Furthermore, the Respondent set out to create a connection with the Complainant by using the Complainant’s ВУЛКАН logo as the branding on the homepage of its websites at the disputed domain names. The Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant has never authorised the Respondent to use its marks. The Respondent has not provided evidence of any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services. The use to which the disputed domain names have been put is not bona fide. Nor is it fair or noncommercial. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Respondent has acted in bad faith by registering and using domain names that incorporate the Complainant’s trade marks and resolving them to websites that operate as fully functional online casinos. The Respondent has intentionally attracted Internet users to its websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion including use of the Complainant’s trade mark on each page of each website as well as content that clearly refers to the Complainant’s history and reputation. The Respondent directs traffic from all of the websites at the disputed domain names via its own affiliate programme, Pelican Partners. There have been a number of previous UDRP cases brought by the Complainant where the same Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith including the following case, which related to 77 domain names with identical websites to those at issue here: Dareos Ltd. and Dareos Inc. v. Inna Feshchuk, Natalia Zelenina, Tatiana Deduch and Dmitry Shepilev, WIPO Case No. D2020-1232. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that: - the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights; and - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and - the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Consolidation The principles governing the question of whether a complaint may be brought by multiple complainants or against multiple respondents are set out in section 4.11 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). As regards the Complainants, the Panel is satisfied that (a) the Complainants, which both own relevant trade marks, have a specific common grievance against the Respondent and that the Respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the Complainants in similar fashion and (b) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation. As regards the Respondents, the Panel notes that: 1. All disputed domain names resolve to identical websites with, amongst other things, the same copyright notice, contact email address and affiliate partner. 2. All disputed domain names are registered with one of two Registrars. 3. All bar three of the disputed domain names share a registration date with at least one of the other disputed domain names. 4. The three named Respondents were also named as Respondents in the following case brought by the Complainant, where the panel ordered consolidation of the respondents on the grounds of common control: Dareos Ltd. and Dareos Inc. v. Inna Feshchuk, Natalia Zelenina, Tatiana Deduch and Dmitry Shepilev,supra. 5. None of the Respondents have appeared in this proceeding to object to consolidation. For the above reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names are subject to common control, and that, in the circumstances, consolidation of the Respondents is fair and equitable to all parties, and also procedurally efficient. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the terms “Volcano”, “Vulkan” and “V” by virtue of its registered trade marks mentioned above. Section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 makes clear that, where the relevant trade mark is recognisable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms, whether descriptive, meaningless, or otherwise, would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. Section 1.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0 adds that a domain name, which consists of an intentional misspelling of a trade mark is considered by UDRP panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognisable aspects of the relevant mark. The Panel considers that all of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks because they consist of the Complainant’s trade marks or misspellings or abbreviations thereof together with descriptive or meaningless terms and/or numbers. While the Complainant’s trade marks are more recognisable in some of the disputed domain names than others, the Panel notes that, as explained in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0, the overall facts and circumstances of a case, including relevant website content, may support a finding of confusing similarity, particularly where it appears that a respondent registered a domain name precisely because it believed that the domain name was confusingly similar to a mark held by the complainant. The Panel considers that that applies here, given the Respondent has used all of the disputed domain names for websites that effectively impersonate the Complainant. The Panel notes that the Respondent has not appeared in this proceeding to deny that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. Also, similar types of domain names were held to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks in a previous UDRP case involving the same parties: Dareos Ltd. and Dareos Inc. v. Inna Feshchuk, Natalia Zelenina, Tatiana Deduch and Dmitry Shepilev,supra. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests As explained in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0, the consensus view is that, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If not, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. Here, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples of circumstances, which, if proved, suffice to demonstrate that a respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests. As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Panel has concluded below that the Respondent has used the disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking the Complainant’s products and services. Such use of the disputed domain names could not be said to be bona fide. In the oft-quoted case of Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, the panel stated that: “… use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a “bona fide” offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.” Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy apply in the circumstances of this case. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests and there is no rebuttal by the Respondent. The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith It is obvious that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with the Complainant’s distinctive trade marks in mind, given that the disputed domain names incorporate multiple versions and variations of the Complainant’s trade marks and resolve to gambling websites that effectively impersonate the Complainant, not to mention the industrial scale of the Respondent’s operation. The Panel concludes from the foregoing that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 <24vulkan11.com>, <24vulkan-slots.org>, <24vulkan-slots.com>, <24vulkanm.com>,