The Complainant is Ericius Investments Limited, Cyprus, internally represented.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Nikolay Tishenko, Forbs, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 13, 2021. On April 13, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 13, 2021, 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. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 16, 2021 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 April 22, 2021. 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 April 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 13, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 26, 2021. The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on May 31, 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 a Cyprus company operating in the field of online sports betting under PARIMATCH sign. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations in various jurisdictions for its PARIMATCH trademark, including international trademark registration No. 1298964, registered on October 26, 2015. The Complainant’s affiliated companies operate the official website for the sports betting services at “www.parimatch.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on February 22, 2021 and resolved to a website prominently featuring the Complainant’s trademark and being merely copy of the Complainant’s website offering the betting services. At the time of the decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is a standard registration requirement and shall be ignored for the confusing similarity test. The only difference is the addition in disputed domain name of the generic word “pl”, which is descriptive information about specific PARIMATCH services provided in Poland (PL is a country code of Poland under ISO 3166). This addition does not suffice to negate the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The website at the disputed domain name does not offer any genuine services other than deliberately and illegally soliciting customers. The disputed domain name was not registered by the Complainant nor by any of its affiliated companies or licensees. The Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark or to register the disputed domain name or to resell its services. There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that the Respondent have any rights in the name “PARIMATCH”. The Respondent chose the disputed domain name in an effort to capitalize on the Complainant’s famous trademark, this could not be considered a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant has prior rights in the PARIMATCH trademark which precede the Respondents’ registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is operating in the field of online sports betting as the Complainant, but provides own services under PARIMATCH trademark, using similar web design and illegally using PARIMATCH trademark. The Respondent is not making any noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is used for the sole purpose of deceitfully leading the potential and current Complainant’s customers to the competing Respondent’s website, thus soliciting business from the Complainant. This creates general confusion among customers, which dilute the value of the brand “PARIMATCH”. The website at the disputed domain name provides false contact details. The services offered at the website at the disputed domain name lack required regulatory permits and rely on falsified permits. Since the word “parimatch” incorporated in the disputed domain name is a fictitious word, it is very unlikely that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name not having a knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. 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 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 incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark. According to 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 (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The Panel finds that addition of “pl” letters and a hyphen do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. Considering the above, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has established 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 rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which could demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests (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, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875). The disputed domain name used to redirect Internet users to a website with a logo similar to the Complainant’s and prominently featuring the Complainant’s word trademark to make the Internet users believe that they actually access the Complainant’s website, or the website authorized by the Complainant. Past UDRP panels confirmed that such actions prove registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name (see Daniel C. Marino, Jr. v. Video Images Productions, et al.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0598, Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Weatherman, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0211). The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name resolving to an inactive website (see, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Daniele Tornatore,WIPO Case No. D2016-1302). 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 According to section 3.2.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 “[n]oting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark (particularly in the case of domainers), UDRP panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. Further factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name, or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s mark.” The Panel finds that incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks and featuring it at the website at the disputed domain name to offer services similar to the Complainant's confirm the Respondent knew and targeted the Complainant and its trademarks when registering the disputed domain name, which is bad faith. According to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location. In this case, the disputed domain name was resolving to a website featuring the Complainant’s trademark and falsely pretended to be Complainant’s website to intentionally attract Internet users by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source of the website and its products. The Panel finds the above confirms the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Although at the time of this decision the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage, its previous bad faith use and lack of explanation of possible good faith use from the Respondent makes any good faith use of the disputed domain name implausible. Thus, the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith (see, e.g., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Privacy Protection, Hosting Ukraaine LLC / Виталий Броцман (Vitalii Brocman),WIPO Case No. DPW2017-0003). 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 Taras Kyslyy
Sole Panelist
Date: June 9, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy