ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Moonlite N.V. v. Alla Bazuk Case No. D2024-2334 1. The Parties The Complainant is Moonlite N.V., Netherlands (Kingdom of the), represented by Gabnys Gabniene, Lithuania. The Respondent is Alla Bazuk, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain names and are registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 4, 2024. On June 13, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 13, 2024, 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 (NameCheap, Inc., Name.com, Inc., NameSilo, LLC, GoDaddy.com, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 17, 2024, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 2, 2024. 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”).
page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 22, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 11, 2024. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on June 18, 2024. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on September 2, 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 The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Moonlite N.V., a legal entity registered in Curaçao, Netherlands (Kingdom of the). The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of the following: - United Kingdom trademark registration number UK00003148764 for the LEON trademark registered on May 6, 2016. The aforementioned trademark is used and connected to the goods and services sector indicated in the above-mentioned registration, i.e. gaming services, online gambling, online games, gambling. In addition, the Complainant operates the websites “www.leonbets.com”, “www.leonbets.net”, “www.leon.net”, “www.leon.casino”, “www.leonbet.in”, and “www.leon.bet”. The disputed domain names and were registered on September 8, 2023, and September 4, 2023, respectively, and are currently resolving to websites displaying pay per click advertising. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant According to the Complainant, each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case. First, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark registrations of the Complainant. Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Third, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on June 18, 2024, stating “Hello. We removed the sites leoncasino-gr.org and leoncasino-greece.org”.
page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to each disputed domain name: (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 burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant. The Respondent’s default does not by itself mean that the Complainant is deemed to have prevailed. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “casino”, “Greece” or “gr” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.
page 4 The Panel finds the disputed domain names carry a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. The composition of the disputed domain names, comprising the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety and the addition of the term “casino”, “Greece” or “gr” related to one specific and well-known location of the Complainant creates a risk of Internet user confusion. It is clear that the Respondent intends to profit from the misdirection of Internet users expecting to find the Complainant given that the disputed domain names resolve to pay per click advertising through which the Respondent presumably earns click-through revenue, which does not amount to a noncommercial use nor bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that: - The trademark has been in use since the year 2006. - The disputed domain names were both registered in September 2023. - The addition of the term “casino” to the disputed domain names clearly evidences that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks. - Both disputed domain names contain pay per click ads. - The Respondent is in default. In light of these facts, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site 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 the Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site or location. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 and be transferred to the Complainant. /Pablo A. Palazzi/ Pablo A. Palazzi Sole Panelist Date: September 16, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy