ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Navasard Limited v. 胡雪 (Jinkon) Case No. D2024-1638 1. The Parties Complainant is Navasard Limited, Cyprus, internally represented. Respondent is 胡雪 (Jinkon), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <1xbet.world> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Xiamen ChinaSource Internet Service Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 18, 2024. On April 19, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 22, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on April 26, 2024 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint in English on April 29, 2024. On April 26, 2024, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese. On April 29, 2024, Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. Respondent did not submit any comment on Complainant’s submission. 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 Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 13, 2024. In accordance with the
page 2 Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 2, 2024. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 3, 2024. The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on June 7, 2024. 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 Complainant operates an online sports betting business in Eastern Europe under the 1XBET trademark, and has existed since March 9, 2015. It owns and operates several registered trademarks with the 1XBET mark, including: - European Union registered trademark number 013914254 for the 1XBETdesign and word mark, registered on July 27, 2015; and - European Union registered trademark number 014227681 for the 1XBET word mark, registered on September 21, 2015. The Domain Name was registered on November 4, 2023 and it currently directs to a “Dan.com” parking page and is offered for sale at USD 1,200. On November 24, 2023, Complainant sent an abuse report to the Registrar, requesting Respondent to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant. The Registrar advised Complainant that it was unable to access the site the Domain Name directed to and was unable to see any information related to Complainant. Registrar advised for Complainant to proceed with a UDRP proceeding. Complainant proceeded accordingly. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations for 1XBET and that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name with the intention to confuse Internet users looking for bona fide and well-known 1XBET products and services. Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent, nor authorized Respondent to register or use the Domain Name, which includes Complainant’s trademarks, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Procedural Issue – Language of the Proceeding The Rules, in paragraph 11(a), provide that unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified otherwise in the registration agreement between the respondent and the registrar in relation to the disputed domain name, the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. Complainant submitted its Complaint in English. In its Complaint, Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English. According to the information received from the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese. Complainant contends that: the Domain Name is registered in Latin characters and not Chinese script, the Registrar’s website is available in the English language; the displayed content on the Domain Name’s website is in English; that the Domain Name is offered for sale at USD 1,200, on a website with content in English; that proceeding in Chinese would require Complainant to retain specialized translation services, and the time and costs required for translation of the proceedings would unfairly burden Complainant and delay the proceedings and adjudication of this matter. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both Parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the Parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time, and costs. The Panel accepts Complainant’s submissions regarding the language of the proceeding. The Panel notes that the Center notified the Parties in Chinese and English of the language of the proceeding as well as notified Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint. Respondent chose not to comment on the language of the proceeding nor did Respondent choose to file a Response. The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure that the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner. Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to translate the Complaint into Chinese and to conduct the proceeding in Chinese. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding. 6.2. Substantive Issues Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states that failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true.
page 4 Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant provided evidence of its rights in the 1XBET trademarks, as noted above. With Complainant’s rights in the 1XBET trademark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in which it is registered (in this case, “.world”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. Here, the Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s 1XBET trademarks. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP. From the record in this case, Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the 1XBET trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the trademarks. The Panel finds that Respondent is also not known to be associated with the 1XBET trademarks and there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name directs to a “Dan.com” parking page and is offered for sale at USD 1200. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and cannot under the circumstances confer on Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie claim that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely:
page 5 “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration 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 your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” The Panel finds that Complainant provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the 1XBET trademarks long predate the registration of the Domain Name. Complainant is also well established and known. Therefore, Respondent was likely aware of the 1XBET trademarks when it registered the Domain Name, or knew or should have known that the Domain Name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; see also TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1973. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007. Further, the registration of the Domain Name incorporating Complainant’s 1XBET trademark in its entirety suggests Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the 1XBET trademarks at the time of registration of the Domain Name and its effort to opportunistically capitalize on the registration and use of the Domain Name. In addition, the Domain Name is currently offered for sale at USD 1,200. In the present circumstances, considering the distinctiveness and reputation of the 1XBET trademarks, the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith and Complainant succeeds under 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 Domain Name <1xbet.world> be transferred to Complainant. /Kimberley Chen Nobles/ Kimberley Chen Nobles Sole Panelist Date: June 18, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy