ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Moonlite N.V. v. Anzhela Ravluk Case No. D2024-2740 1. The Parties The Complainant is Moonlite N.V., Curaçao, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), represented by Gabnys Gabniene, Lithuania. The Respondent is Anzhela Ravluk, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names and are registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 4, 2024. On July 5, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 9, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 July 18, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 7, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 8, 2024. The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on August 13, 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.
page 2 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 UK00003148767 for the Леон trademark (LEON in Cyrillic) registered on May 6, 2016. 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 registrations; 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 were registered on November 14, 2023, and February 7, 2024, respectively, and are currently redirecting to websites displaying the Complainant’s LEON trademark. On both these websites, one in Portuguese and one in Greek, the services and goods displayed are the same as those offered by the Complainant. In addition, the Respondent present itself as Leon Bet Portugal and Leon Bet Greece respectively. Finally, on the about us page of the first website (i.e.: www.leon-bet-casino-pt.com) references to Moonlite N.V. are displayed in what appears as an attempt to impersonate the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the LEON trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and particularly that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names either for SEO (i.e. search engine optimization) traffic stealing, or to unfairly use the Complainant’s good name and trademark to mislead customers in order to provide them with unlicensed gambling services. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Issue Under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel is required to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and also that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. As the Respondent’s mailing address disclosed by the Registrar is stated to be in Ukraine, which is subject to an international conflict at the date of this Decision that may impact case notification, it is appropriate for the Panel to consider whether the proceeding should continue.
page 3 The Panel notes that the records show that the Center’s Written Notice could not be delivered to the address disclosed by the Registrar in its verification. However, the Panel notes that the Center’s Notification of Complaint email was delivered to the Respondent’s email address provided by the Registrar. The Panel also notes that the Complainant has specified in the Complaint that any challenge made by the Respondent to any decision to transfer or cancel the disputed domain names shall be referred to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the location of the principal office of the concerned registrar. In this case, the principal office of the Registrar, Namecheap, Inc., is in Arizona, United States of America. It is moreover noted that, for the reasons which are set out later in this Decision, the Panel has no serious doubt (albeit in the absence of any Response) that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain names in bad faith and with the intention of unfairly targeting the Complainant’s goodwill in its trademark. The Panel finds that the Respondent has been given a fair opportunity to present its case, and so that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition, the Panel will proceed to a Decision accordingly. 6.2. Substantive Issues In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain names, paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that: (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 have been registered and are being used in bad faith. 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 names. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 Panel finds the mark is incorporated entirely and recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of the other terms here, “bet”, “casino”, “pt” and “greece”, 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. Based on the available record, 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
page 4 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed as impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. In addition, the Panel notes the composition of the disputed domain names, the way the websites display the Complainant’s trademark, and pretend to be “official” websites. The Panel finds that the disputed domain names and the corresponding websites carry a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant and its website. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. 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 Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. The disputed domain names were registered several years after the Complainant registered its LEON trademark. The fact that the disputed domain names reproduce the Complainant’s trademark, together with their use to sell goods/services competing with those of the Complainant on a website where references to the Complainant’s company are also displayed, are clear indications that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark and activity when registering the disputed domain names. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity as in the case here, allegedly for impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
page 5 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 and be transferred to the Complainant. /Fabrizio Bedarida/ Fabrizio Bedarida Sole Panelist Date: August 22, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy