ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Navasard Limited v. mr anton Case No. D2024-4178 1. The Parties Complainant is Navasard Limited, Cyprus, represented internally. Respondent is mr anton, Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <1xpoker.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 10, 2024. On October 11, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 11, 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 to Complainant on October 14, 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 on October 15, 2024. 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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 18, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 7, 2024. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 8, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on November 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. 4. Factual Background Complainant, based in Cyprus, operates an online gaming business. Complainant owns the domain name <1xbet.com>, which it registered on September 1, 2006, and has used that domain name to host its commercial gaming website. Complainant holds European Union trademark registrations for the word mark 1XBET (Reg. No. 014227681, registered on September 21, 2015) and the design mark 1XBET (Reg. No. 013914254, registered on July 27, 2015). The Domain Name was registered on May 21, 2014. The Domain Name resolves to a website that appears to offer gaming services. On October 3, 2024, Complainant’s counsel sent a cease-and-desist missive to the Registrar, asserting Complainant’s trademark rights in 1XBET and demanding the transfer of the Domain Name. Complainant received no response to this missive. 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. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (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 has been registered and is 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 name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.
page 3 The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark 1XBET through registration demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the 1XBET mark. Notwithstanding the substitution of the gaming word “poker” for the gaming word “bet,” the dominant portion of the trademark – 1X – is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in connection with the Domain Name. Respondent has not come forward in this proceeding to articulate a reason for registering the Domain Name other than for its association with Complainant. Nor has Responded come forward to deny knowledge of Complainant’s mark when registering the Domain Name. On this undisputed record, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to divert Internet traffic to Respondent’s website by creating consumer confusion. Such a use of the Domain Name does not invest Respondent with rights or legitimate interests vis-à-vis the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that Respondent has 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.
page 4 The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith under the Policy. The Panel incorporates its discussion above in the “Rights or Legitimate Interests” section. On this undisputed record, the Panel finds that Respondent more likely than not targeted Complainant when registering the Domain Name, and has used the Domain Name for illegitimate commercial gain by seeking to divert Internet traffic to Respondent’s own site. This constitutes bad faith registration and use within the meaning of the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 <1xpoker.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Robert A. Badgley/ Robert A. Badgley Sole Panelist Date: November 27, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy