Complainant is BET365 Group Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Mishcon de Reya LLP, United Kingdom.
Respondent is Mingcheng Zhou, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 8, 2020. On September 8, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On September 9, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on September 9, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 14, 2020. 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 15, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 5, 2020. On September 16, 18 and 23, 2020, the Center received informal email communications from Respondent in response to which the Center sent an email regarding the possible settlement options on September 18, 2020. On the same day, Complainant expressed that it wished to proceed with the Complaint. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties that it was proceeding to panel appointment on October 6, 2020. The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on October 14, 2020. 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 Founded in 2000, Complainant is one of the world’s largest online betting and gaming companies. Complainant operates in around 140 countries and has over 53 million customers worldwide. Through its website, “www.bet365.com,” registered in 2000, Complainant uses the mark BET365 in connection with sports betting and online casino games. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for marks comprised of BET365, including United Kingdom Registration No. 2456453 for BET365, registered on January 16, 2009; European Union Trade Mark No. 5928346 for BET365, registered on February 15, 2012; and Australia Registration No. 1378091 for BET365, registered on January 14, 2013. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 29, 2020. The Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s BET365 mark. According to Complainant, the similarity of the “.com.co” Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in the Disputed Domain Name to the “.com” TLD used in the Complainant’s primary domain name serves to increase the likelihood that Internet users will be confused into believing the Disputed Domain Name is connected to Complainant. Complainant further alleges that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. According to Complainant, Respondent has not been authorized by Complainant to use the BET365 mark in the Disputed Domain Name. Nor is Respondent connected to or affiliated with Respondent. Further, Complainant alleges Respondent is not actively using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a website. Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant alleges that Respondent knew or should have been aware of Complainant’s BET365 mark at the time Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. Additionally, Complainant believes Respondent intends to use the Disputed Domain Name to create a likelihood of confusion with respect to Complainant’s mark. Moreover, Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name prevents Complainant from reflecting the BET365 mark, thereby disrupting Complainant’s business. Furthermore, Complainant contends that Respondent is passively holding the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Thus, Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name are in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not formally reply to Complainant’s contentions. The Center, however, received several informal email communications from Respondent seeking to settle the dispute and offering to transfer the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the BET365 mark by way of its trademark registrations. The Disputed Domain incorporates the BET365 mark in its entirety. Accordingly, the Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s addition of the TLD “.com.co” to the Disputed Domain Name does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. Moreover, as explained below, addition of the TLD “.com.co” here is relevant to the evaluation of bad faith. Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, which Respondent has not rebutted. In fact, Respondent did not offer any explanation demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the email communications with the Center. Moreover, Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent’s use of the BET365 mark in the Disputed Domain Name. There is no evidence in the record showing that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to a website and there is no evidence suggesting Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain. Therefore, the Disputed Domain Name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of services. Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s BET365 mark. In the absence of a plausible explanation for this wholesale copying of Complainant’s trademark, this copying supports a finding that Respondent knew of Complainant’s trademark and intentionally copied it. Respondent’s inclusion of the TLD “.com.co” as part of the second level domain is further evidence of an intent to impersonate Complainant’s very popular website. Absent a benign explanation, the Panel finds that Respondent intended to create a domain name that would appear to be Complainant’s. This is bad faith registration. The Panel further finds that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent’s non-use of the Disputed Domain Name with an active website does not preclude a finding of bad faith use. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) section 3.3. The circumstances surrounding Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name, including Respondent’s failure to submit a response on the merits or to offer evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, support an inference of Respondent’s bad faith use. See “Dr. Martens” International Trading GmbH and “Dr. Maertens” Marketing GmbH v. Godaddy.com, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2017-0246; Bruichladdich Distillery Company Limited v. Johannes Iga Schneemann,WIPO Case No. D2014-0168. Furthermore, even if the website is not active, the Disputed Domain Name presents a high risk of fraudulent phishing or other email-based fraud. The Panel finds that this is the most plausible intended use for Respondent’s blatant imitation, not only of Complainant’s trademark, but also of its commercial website by the addition of the TLD “.com.co”. In the absence of a formal response denying the allegations and offering a good faith explanation for the intended use, it is prudent to accept Complainant’s allegation of bad faith use. The Panel may consider all surrounding circumstances when deciding how much weight to assign to a respondent’s failure to respond to allegations of bad faith. A complainant continues to have the burden of establishing each element. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3. The Panel may, however, draw such inferences from Respondent’s default as appropriate. See Rules, paragraph 14(b). Where, as here, there is a conspicuous attempt to imitate a commercially significant domain name, and consequent risk of consumer fraud via email, which fraud does not require an active webpage and may be difficult to detect before harm is inflicted, it is appropriate to attach extra significance to Respondent’s silence. Under these circumstances, it is fair and prudent to find bad faith use, even when the Disputed Doman Name is not yet active as a webpage. Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: October 28, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy