The Complainant is Realm Entertainment Limited of Ta’Xbiex, Malta, represented by Domain and Intellectual Property Consultants, DIPCON AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Engin Talih of the Turks and Caicos Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 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 October 15, 2015. On October 15, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On October 15, 2015, 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 October 19, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 8, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 12, 2015.
The Center appointed Emre Kerim Yardimci as the sole panelist in this matter on November 18, 2015. 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 is an online gaming and gambling company offering a wide range of betting, gambling and gaming services through its website “”.
The Complainant has been using the trademark BETS10 since 2009 and holds Community Trade Mark (CTM) registrations. The oldest CTM registration for BETS10 is registered on September 14, 2011.
The Complainant has been the owner of the domain name since September, 14, 2009.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on May 11, 2015. According to the current record, the Respondent is a physical person domiciled in Turks and Caicos Island (a British Overseas Territory). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant requests the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BETS10 as the addition of the number 12 is not sufficient to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from its registered trademarks.
The Complainant considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, mainly because the Complainant has neither licensed nor otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the trademark BETS10.
Finally, in addressing the question of registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, the Complainant observes that the Disputed Domain Name is redirected to a website “” that offers online gambling and gaming services and which is a competitor of the Complainant and that the trademark BETS10 is also mentioned on the website “”. The Complainant asserts for this reason that the Respondent is obviously taking advantage of the Complainant’s trademark in order to disrupt the business of Complainant and draw Internet traffic to Respondent’s website “” thereby taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s reputation. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Disputed Domain Name, the Complainant must prove the followings;
(i) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant furnished evidence that the mark BETS10 is registered before The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, as indicated above. The Complainant also claims that the BETS10 trademark is well-known in the online gaming industry by putting forward the extensive number visitors to its website “” for a period of two and half months between May 1, 2015 and July 15, 2015.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has succeeded in proving it has rights in its BETS10 trademark and also that the trademark can be considered well-known in the online gambling and gaming industry.
The Disputed Domain Name integrates the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark in its entirety, as its dominant element and differs from the registered BETS10 trademark by the additional number “12” and the country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) “.co”.
The addition of the number “12” not only is not sufficient to distinguish or differentiate the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark but also reinforces the relationship between Disputed Domain Name and the Complaint’s trademark due to the use of the same numerical pattern (“10” and “12”).
The Panel is entitled to ignore the domain suffix “.co”. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BETS10 trademarks.
The Complainant has satisfied this Policy requirement. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that its BETS10 trademark is well-known in online gambling and games and that the Respondent was aware of this, that it has not granted the Respondent any rights in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, that the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Name and has not made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy and that there is a case for the Respondent to answer. The Respondent has not disputed any of the claims made by the Complainant and has not provided any answer in respect of the cease and desist letters that the Complainant sent, or in these proceedings. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
As a matter of fact, the Respondent has targeted the Complainant and its BETS10 trademark to further its own commercial activities, which is borne out by the reference on the Respondent’s website to the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark and website “” alongside the Complainant’s competitors.
The Respondent failed to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, or its good faith conduct, or to challenge the Complainant’s contentions, by not replying to the Complainant’s cease and desist letters and in this administrative proceeding.
Therefore, in the view of cumulative circumstances, the Panel finds that the requirement of registration and use in bad faith is satisfied, according to 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.
Emre Kerim Yardimci
Sole Panelist
Date: December 2, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy