The Complainants are Dareos Ltd, Cyprus, and Dareos Inc., Marshall Islands, represented by Mapa Trademarks SL, Spain (collectively referred to as the “Complainant”).
The Respondents are Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd., Belize; Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com, United States of America (“United States”) / Aleksandr Strunin, Anastasiya Voloshina, and Yuriy Sharov, Russian Federation; Private Whois, Global Domain Privacy Services Inc., Panama / Anastasia Voloshina, Svetlana Sboychikova, and Natalya Pladzidina, Russian Federation; Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org), United States / Nikolay Nefedov, IT.Main, Germany; Novolux Services Limitada, Cyprus; and, Bonostar Limited, Costa Rica (referred to collectively as the “Respondent”). 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 December 31, 2020. On January 4, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars requests for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 5, 2021, 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 January 5, 2021, 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 January 7, 2021. 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 8, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 28, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 29, 2021. The Center appointed Jane Seager as the sole panelist in this matter on February 8, 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 is composed of two companies operating under the same name. The Complainant is engaged in the provision of gaming, casino, and entertainment products and services. For use in connection with its gaming, casino, and entertainment products and services, the Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks for VULKAN and its Cyrillic-script equivalent ВУЛКАН, as well as VOLCANO and a figurative “V” trademark, registered in jurisdictions throughout the world, including the following: - International Trademark Registration No. 984297, VULKAN, registered on August 11, 2008, designating Belarus, Croatia, the European Union, Kazakhstan, Serbia, and Ukraine; - Russian Federation Trademark Registration No. 361357, ВУЛКАН, registered on October 7, 2008; - International Trademark Registration No. 989103, VOLCANO, registered on August 11, 2008, designating Belarus, Croatia, the European Union, Kazakhstan, Serbia, and Ukraine; and - International Trademark Registration No. 949162, , registered on January 26, 2007, designating Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine. The present Complaint involves 42 disputed domain names, all of which were registered between December 13, 2018 and October 19, 2020: Domain Name: Registration Date: April 9, 2020 April 9, 2020 October 6, 2020 October 6, 2020 October 19, 2020 September 16, 2020 July 13, 2020 September 3, 2020 September 23, 2020 December 13, 2018 December 13, 2018 December 13, 2018 December 13, 2018 May 28, 2019 May 28, 2019 June 6, 2019 October 29, 2019 October 29, 2019 October 24, 2019 December 13, 2018 December 13, 2018 June 10, 2019 October 25, 2019 May 12, 2020 September 24, 2020 April 9, 2020 April 6, 2020 April 9, 2020 June 1, 2020 April 17, 2020 October 14, 2020 October 14, 2020 October 14, 2020 September 23, 2020 October 14, 2020 February 27, 2019 December 17, 2019 April 6, 2020 August 11, 2020 June 22, 2020 April 17, 2020 August 26, 2020 The disputed domain names have all been used to resolve or redirect to websites purporting to offer online gaming, casino, and entertainment services (the “Respondent’s websites”). The Respondent’s websites made prominent use of the Complainant’s VULKAN and ВУЛКАН trademarks (including in the same stylized form as used by the Complainant) and made use of the same color scheme, layout, and look and feel as websites operated by the Complainant and the Complainant’s official online service providers. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has it been authorized to make use of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names bear no relationship to any legitimate business. Rather, the Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in order to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor is the Respondent making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names were registered for the purpose of making unauthorized commercial use of the Complainant’s trademarks, in bad faith. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names using a privacy service, together with the Respondent’s prior registration of additional infringing domain names further support a finding that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is operating online casinos at the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve or redirect. The Complainant asserts that by doing so, the Respondent has made use of the Complainant’s trademarks to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant notes that the Respondent even makes reference to the Complainant’s corporate history on the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve, in an attempt to mislead Internet users into believing that the Respondent’s websites are those of the Complainant. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Consolidation of the Complainant As noted in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11, in assessing whether a complaint filed by multiple complainants may be brought against a single respondent, UDRP panels look at 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that both Complainant companies are the owners of trademark registrations for the VULKAN, ВУЛКАН, VOLCANO, and figurative “V” trademarks. As noted in greater detail below, the Respondent appears to have engaged in conduct targeting trademarks held by both Complainant companies. As such, both Complainant companies have a specific common grievance against the Respondent. The Panel is not aware of any circumstances that would create prejudice to the Respondent by allowing the Complaint filed by multiple Complainants to proceed. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s request for consolidation of multiple Complainants. 6.2. Consolidation of the Respondent Paragraph 3(c) of the 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. Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, UDRP 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. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.11.2. The Complainant has highlighted several factors that support the inference that the disputed domain names are subject to common control. Notably, all of the disputed domain names either resolve or redirect to websites with similar content, targeting the Complainant’s trademarks; all of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve or redirect have listed the same contact phone number, together with the same or similar contact email addresses; the “about us” pages of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve or redirect all make reference to the same operational company; and, all of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve or redirect reference the same social media pages. None of the nominally-distinct registrants of the disputed domain names has come forward with any assertions or evidence that would otherwise support a finding that the disputed domain names are not subject to common control. In light of the above, and in the interests of procedural efficiency, the Panel considers it appropriate to accept the Complainant’s request for consolidation of the Complaint against multiple nominally-distinct Respondents. 6.3. Substantive Matters In order to prevail in its Complaint, the Complainant is required to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely: (i) the disputed domain names are 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 disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in VULKAN, ВУЛКАН, VOLCANO, and figurative “V”, the registration details of which are provided in the factual background section above. The disputed domain names The disputed domain names Similarly, the disputed domain name The disputed domain names The disputed domain name The remaining disputed domain names “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 […]. 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.” Similar reasoning may be applied in the present case. The Panel notes that the abovementioned disputed domain names resolve or redirect to websites that seek to trade off the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks, from which the Panel infers that the Respondent sought to target the Complainant’s trademarks through the disputed domain names; see also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.15. The Panel finds the abovementioned disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VULKAN and VOLCANO trademarks. As noted in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1, the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) 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. In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant. The Respondent has not come forward to produce any evidence of any authorization for it to make use of the Complainant’s trademarks in a domain name or otherwise. The Complainant has submitted screen captures of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve or redirect. As noted above, all of the Respondent’s websites made prominent use of the Complainant’s VULKAN and ВУЛКАН trademarks (including in the same stylized form as used by the Complainant) and made use of the same color scheme, layout, and look and feel as websites operated by the Complainant. By making use of the Complainant’s trademarks to offer online gaming and casino services via websites at domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, the Respondent is attempting to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill attached to the Complainant’s trademarks. Internet users that arrive at the Respondent’s websites are likely to be misled into believing that the Respondent’s websites are operated by or authorized by the Complainant, when in reality no such relationship exists between the Parties. The Panel does not consider the Respondent to be using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The names of the nominally-distinct registrants of the disputed domain names as listed in the Registrars’ WhoIs records bear no resemblance to the disputed domain names. There is no evidence of the Respondent having any registered trademark rights corresponding to any of the disputed domain names. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names in connection with websites that seek to create a misleading impression of association with the Complainant does not give rise to any legitimate claim of being commonly known by the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent’s websites are intended to be commercial in nature. The Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names as contemplated by paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. The Respondent has not come forward to produce any evidence that might otherwise support a claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks, whose registration predates the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names by several years, may be inferred from the contents of the Respondent’s website, which clearly seek to target the Complainant. The Respondent, having no relationship with the Complainant nor any authorization to make use of the Complainant’s trademarks in a domain name or otherwise, has proceeded to register 42 domain names comprising the Complainant’s trademarks, or variations thereof. The Panel further notes that at least one of the named registrants of the disputed domain names, Denis Belov, has been a named Respondent in a number of prior UDRP cases filed by the Complainant involving similarly-composed domain names; see, e.g., Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service Inc d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Denis Belov,WIPO Case No. D2016-2244; 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; 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. The Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks, with the view to taking unauthorized commercial advantage of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel further finds that the Respondent has engaged in an abusive pattern of domain name registration targeting the Complainant. In light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith. Internet users arriving at the Respondent’s websites are likely to mistakenly believe that the gaming and online casino services offered therein are offered by the Complainant, or have been authorized by the Complainant. In light of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names, as described above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites and of the services offered therein, in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the disputed domain names have been used in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of 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 Jane Seager
Sole Panelist
Date: February 24, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy