The Complainant is Excent Investments Corporation of St. John's, Antigua and Barbuda, represented by Gowling Lafleur Henderson, LLP, Canada.
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America / XiaoFeng Lin of Shishi, Fujian, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 24, 2012. On September 25, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 27, 2012, 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 the Complainant on September 28, 2012 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 28, 2012.
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”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 3, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 23, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 26, 2012.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on November 9, 2012. 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 has, since 1996, operated what is now the largest and longest running online bingo business in the world under the trade mark CYBERBINGO. The Respondent operates a website under the disputed domain name in which users are directed to sponsored links to gaming websites that are in competition with those of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends: that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name has been registered, and is being used, in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s trade mark enjoys considerable reputation in the online gaming industry. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110). Use for a web site redirecting users to sponsored links to the sites of competitors of the Complainant does not, of itself, constitute use sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has ever used, or made preparations to use, the disputed domain name in any other way.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Use of a domain name identical to the trade mark of a complainant for the purpose of redirecting Internet users to the sponsored links of its competitors is perhaps the most classic case of registration and use in bad faith. That the sponsored links are those of competitors of the Complainant evinces as intention to profit from the confusion created because the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name are identical.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established 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 disputed domain name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Michael James Spence
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 24, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy