ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Dreambox Games OÜ v. Mysar Mykhailo Case No. D2023-2909 1. The Parties The Complainant is Dreambox Games OÜ, Estonia, internally represented. The Respondent is Mysar Mykhailo, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with URL Solutions, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 6, 2023. On July 7, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 7, 2023, 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 (Global Domain Privacy Services Inc.) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 10, 2023 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 July 12, 2023. 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 July 13, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 2, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 4, 2023. On August 8, 2023, the Respondent sent an informal email communication. The Center appointed Tobias Malte Müller as the sole panelist in this matter on August 10, 2023. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an online casino and sports betting operator incorporated in 2014 in Estonia and conducting its business under the brand CHANZ since 2015. The disputed domain name was registered on April 25, 2023. The Complaint is based amongst others on European Union Trademark CHANZ (verbal) no 013284989 registered on January 22, 2015 for services in class 41. It further results from the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant that the disputed domain name resolves to a website which shows the Complainant's CHANZ trademark, contains references to the CHANZ casino services (e.g. "Chanz Casino welcome bonus", "Chanz Bonuses") and directs users to competing commercial online casino websites by third parties. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Firstly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's CHANZ mark in full. This mark is only followed by the term "casino", which is, however, a direct reference to the services offered by the Complainant and covered by its trademark. The Complainant, secondly, submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is neither making a noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent making a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the domain name's composition, and the Respondent's use of the corresponding site, misleadingly diverts Internet users to competing commercial online casino sites. Thirdly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. In its view, the disputed domain name is intended to attract potential online casino customers to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant's trademarks. The fact that the Respondent has decided not to reveal its identity or contact details, indicates that the Respondent is not conducting regular good faith business via this domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant's contentions. In its email communication on August 8, 2023, Respondent mainly said that they are responsible for , and asked "do you want us to remove the domain right?" 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable". page 3 Furthermore, paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements in order to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or cancelled: (i) the disputed domain name is 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 name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel is satisfied that the registrant of record for the disputed domain name is the Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. It results from the undisputed evidence provided, that the Complainant is - amongst others - the registered owner of European Union Trademark CHANZ (verbal) no 013284989 registered on January 22, 2015. Many UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark for purposes of the first element, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Under such circumstances, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (cf. section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"). This Panel shares the same view and notes that the Complainant's registered trademark CHANZ is included in full in the disputed domain name and is recognizable therein. Furthermore, the combination of the trademark CHANZ with the element "casino" as a suffix does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark. Finally, the generic Top-Level-Domain ("gTLD") ".top" is viewed as a standard registration requirement and is as such to be disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.11.1). In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must secondly establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be proved, shall demonstrate the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. In the Panel's view, based on the undisputed allegations stated above, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that none of these circumstances are found in the case at hand and, therefore, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name: The Panel notes that there is no evidence showing that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. In addition, it results from the Complainant's undisputed allegations that the disputed domain name resolves to a website which shows the Complainant's CHANZ trademark, contains references to the CHANZ casino page 4 services (e.g. "Chanz Casino welcome bonus", "Chanz Bonuses") and directs users to competing commercial online casino websites by third parties. The Panel assesses this use as being commercial, so that it cannot be considered a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. Furthermore, such use as described above cannot be qualified as a bona fide offering of goods or services in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. In fact, this Panel considers that a registrant has no legitimate interest in a domain name that is similar to a third party's mark, where the composition of the domain name is associated to the business of the trademark holder, and that is being used to address consumers in the same business as the trademark holder operates (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.5). Finally, previous UDRP panels have found that once the panel finds a prima facie case is made by a complainant, the burden of production under the second element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Since the Respondent in the case at hand failed to come forward with any allegations or evidence, this Panel finds, in the circumstances of this case, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must thirdly establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy indicates that certain circumstances specified in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy may, "in particular but without limitation", be evidence of the disputed domain name's registration and use in bad faith. One of these circumstances is that the respondent by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). It is the view of this Panel that these circumstances are met in the case at hand. It results from the Complainant's documented allegations that the disputed domain name resolves to a website which shows the Complainant's CHANZ trademark, contains references to the CHANZ casino services (e.g. "Chanz Casino welcome bonus", "Chanz Bonuses") and directs users to competing commercial online casino websites by third parties. For the Panel, it is therefore evident that the Respondent positively knew the Complainant's CHANZ mark and business. Consequently, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent also knew that the disputed domain name included the Complainant's trademark when it registered the disputed domain name, having registered it due to its similarity with the Complainant's CHANZ mark. Registration of the disputed domain name which contains a third party's mark, in awareness of said mark, to take advantage of its similarities with the mentioned mark, and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests amounts to registration in bad faith. The finding of bad faith registration and use is supported by the further circumstances resulting from the case at hand which are: (i) the Respondent's failure to submit a response arguing the Complainant's contentions; (ii) the Respondent's failure to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use; (iii) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put; and (iv) the Respondent hiding its identity behind a privacy shield. page 5 In the light of the above the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to 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, , be transferred to the Complainant. /Tobias Malte Müller/ Tobias Malte Müller Sole Panelist Date: August 24, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy