Complainant is Tipico Group Ltd., Malta, represented Boehmert & Boehmert, Germany.
Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland/ Sibirtev Vladimir, Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 8, 2021. On December 9, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 9, 2021, 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, and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on December 10, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and requesting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to Complaint on December 10, 2021.
The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amendment to the Complaint, satisfied the formal requirements of the .AC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .AC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .AC 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 December 16, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 5, 2022. Respondent did not file a Response and the Center notified Respondent’s default to the parties on January 6, 2022.
The Center appointed Nahitchevansky, Georges as the sole panelist in this matter on January 12, 2022. 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 BackgroundComplainant, Tipico Group Ltd., is a provider of sports betting and online games. Complainant is headquartered in Malta and has branches in Germany, Austria, Croatia, Colombia, and Gibraltar, United Kingdom.
Complainant uses the name and mark TIPICO for its sports betting and gaming activities and services.
Complainant owns trademark registrations for its TIPICO mark in multiple jurisdictions, including inter alia (i) a European Union Trademark Registration (No. 003939998), which issued to registration on September 23, 2005, (ii) an International Trademark Registration (No. 863984), which issued to registration on May 25, 2005, and was extended to the European Union and the United States of America, among other jurisdictions, and (iii) an International Trademark Registration (No, 1040604), which issued to registration on April 29, 2010, and was extended to multiple jurisdictions including the Russian Federation. Complainant also owns the domain name
Respondent is an individual based in the Russian Federation. The disputed domain name was registered on December 2, 2021, and has been used with a website offering sports betting services. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a page that simply reads “vm2815320.52ssd.had.wf Powered by VESTA”.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantComplainant asserts that it is a well-known provider of sports betting services and online games and that it owns strong rights in the TIPICO mark by virtue of its longstanding use of that mark since 2004 and its several registrations for the TIPICO mark.
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIPICO mark as it fully consists of the identical TIPICO mark with the non-distinguishing “.ac” Top Level Domain (“TLD”).
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent (i) has not been licensed or permitted to use the TIPICO mark or to register a domain name based on such mark, and (ii) is using the disputed domain name for a website that is promoting competing sports betting services and which is attempting to pass itself off as connected to Complainant. In that regard, Complainant notes that Respondent’s website prominently features a copy of Complainant’s logo for its TIPICO mark.
Lastly, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain has been registered in bad faith and/or used in bad faith as Respondent upon registering the disputed domain name immediately used it to attract relevant consumers to a website offering competing sports betting services. Complainant further asserts that under the circumstances it is evident that Respondent was clearly aware of Complainant and its TIPICO mark when it registered and then started to use the disputed domain name, particularly in view of Respondent’s use of a copy of Complainant’s TIPICO logo on Respondent’s website.
B. RespondentRespondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsUnder paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarOwnership 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 section 1.2.1. of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)1. Complainant has provided evidence that it owns and uses the TIPICO mark in connection with its sports betting services and that it owns numerous trademark registrations for the TIPICO mark around the world, including the European Union and the Russian Federation that issued well before Respondent registered the disputed domain name.
With Complainant’s rights in the TIPICO mark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain names (typically disregarding the TLD such as “.ac”) is identical or confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. See B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross,WIPO Case No. D2010-0842 and section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The threshold for satisfying this first element is low and panels have found that fully incorporating the identical mark in a disputed domain name is sufficient to meet the threshold.
In the instant proceeding, the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s TIPICO mark as it fully and solely consists of the TIPICO mark. As such, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its rights in Complainant’s TIPICO mark and in showing that the disputed domain name is identical to that trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsUnder paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that the respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International,WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once the 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 evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the Policy.
What the evidence submitted in this proceeding shows, none of which Respondent has contested, is that Respondent has used the disputed domain names for a website that offers competing sports betting services and which attempts to pass itself off as connected to Complainant by featuring a logo that is virtually identical to the one owned and used by Complainant. Given Complainant’s rights in the TIPICO mark in connection with sports betting services, it seems more likely than not that Respondent sought to pass itself off as connected to Complainant and has done so by using a domain name and website that heighten an alleged connection. Such actions by Respondent are not legitimate. WIPO Overview 3.0 at sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.3.
Given that Complainant has established with sufficient evidence that it owns rights in the TIPICO mark, and given Respondent’s above noted actions, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are evident in this case.
C. Registered or Used in Bad FaithIn the present case, Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name that expressly copies Complainant’s TIPICO mark in connection with a website that offers competing sports betting services and which is likely to be viewed as connected to or authorized by Complainant. Given Respondent’s actions and failure to provide a response, it appears that Respondent’s intent was to pass itself off as connected to Complainant or to be seen as an official or authorized service of Complainant. Simply put, Respondent’s actions make it more likely than not that Respondent opportunistically registered and used the disputed domain name, which is based on Complainant’s TIPICO mark, to intentionally and misleadingly attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for Respondent’s own profit. See WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 3.1.4 (and cases cited therein).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant succeeds under this element of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor 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
Georges Nahitchevansky
Sole Panelist
Date: January 26, 2022
1 Noting the substantive similarities between the Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the Panel has referred to prior UDRP cases, where appropriate.