The Complainant is SquarIT Limited of Belize, Belize, represented by Spiral Solutions, Israel.
The Respondent is Ravis Varmas of Paris, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through EuroDNS S.A. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 9, 2013. On April 9, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to SIDN a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 10, 2013, SIDN 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 Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names (the “Regulations”).
In accordance with the Regulations, articles 5.1 and 16.4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 24, 2013. In accordance with the Regulations, article 7.1, the due date for Response was May 14, 2013. On April 24, 2013, the Center received several email communications sent from the registrant’s e-mail address as listed in the WhoIs database for the Domain Name. In the email communications an individual claimed not to be the owner of the Domain Name. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 15, 2013.
The Center appointed Willem J.H. Leppink as the panelist in this matter on May 29, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panelist has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Regulations, article 9.2. 4. Factual Background
The following facts are undisputed.
The Complainant has a long established reputation in the use of its ALLSLOTSCASINO and ALLSLOTS trademarks in relation to online gaming and casino services. The Complainant has been using these marks in the course of trade for many years.
The Complainant owns, manages and operates its websites under the domain names and since April 25, 1999.
The Complainant owns Community Trademark registrations for the ALLSLOTSCASINO trademark (registration number 10563781) and for the ALLSLOTS trademark (registration number 10563716), both registered on June 13, 2012, for goods and services in classes 9, 41 and 42.
The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on October 4, 2010. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Insofar as relevant, the Complainant contends the following.
The Respondent is unlawfully using the Domain Name in order to promote its “All Slots Casino” website (hereinafter the “Infringing Website”). The Complainant contends that the Infringing Website is in fact an infringing copy of the Complainant’s websites, with all of its intellectual property rights therein, including its content, titles and/or trademarks, made by the Respondent without the Complainant’s consent, authorization or permission.
The Domain Name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s ALLSLOTSCASINO and ALLSLOTS trademarks. Consequently, the Respondent is misleading Internet users and consumers to believe that its Infringing Website is somehow related or connected to the Complainant’s websites.
As a result of the above, the Complainant also contends that there is a substantial likelihood that Internet users or consumers will be confused into believing that there is some affiliation, connection, sponsorship, approval or association between the Complainant and the Respondent.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights regarding the Domain Name. Furthermore, the Respondent is neither an agent nor a licensee of the Complainant and has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant.
The Respondent has no rights to use the Complainant’s ALLSLOTSCASINO and/or ALLSLOTS trademarks, or marks that are confusingly similar to these trademarks.
The Complainant is unaware of any legitimate rights the Respondent could have in the Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name and has made no fair or good-faith use of the Domain Name.
The Complainant contends that as both the Complainant’s websites and the Infringing Website are using the same content, titles and/or trademarks and as the Complainant’s domain names and the Domain Name are identical, it is clear that the Respondent is unlawfully using the Complainant’s trademarks in order to mislead users to believe that the Infringing Website is actually the Complainant’s website and/or somehow associated or related to it, thus offering competing services to such online traffic. Furthermore, as both the Complainant’s website and the Infringing Website offer online gaming services and/or information, it is clear that the Respondent has registered and is holding the Domain Name in bad faith with the intention to profit from it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to article 2.1 of the Regulations, for this Complaint to be successful in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove that:
(a) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a trade name, protected under Dutch law in which the Complainant has rights; or a personal name registered in the General Municipal Register (‘gemeentelijke basisadministratie’) of a municipality in the Netherlands, or the name of a Dutch public legal entity or the name of an association or foundation registered in the Netherlands under which the Complainant undertakes public activities on a permanent basis; and
(b) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(c) the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith or is being used in bad faith.
As the Respondent has not filed a Response, the Panel shall rule on the basis of the Complaint. In accordance with article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Complaint shall in that event be granted, unless the Panel considers it to be without basis in law or in fact. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to article 2.1(a) of the Regulations, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or trade name in which the Complainant has rights.
Taking into account that the top-level suffix “.nl” may be disregarded under the test of identity or confusing similarity, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to the ALLSLOTSCASINO trademark.
The Complainant has therefore established the first element of article 2.1 of the Regulations. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not own any trademark registrations for “allslotscasino”, or has been known under that name. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not 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 of the Complainant, since it appears that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to offer online gaming services and/or information with the intention to profit from it. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Respondent has not filed a Response, and the Panel has not found any evidence in the record that could establish rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name on the part of the Respondent.
Under these circumstances, and considering article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has therefore established the second element of article 2.1 of the Regulations. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. According to the Complainant, this is emphasized by the fact that the Complainant’s websites and the Infringing Website are using the same content, titles and/or trademarks and that the Complainant’s domain names and the Domain Name are identical.
In this regard the Panel notes that the Complainant’s ALLSLOTS and ALLSLOTSCASINO trademarks were registered almost two years after the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant has furthermore provided no evidence as to how the Infringing Website would be “an infringing copy” of the Complainant’s website (for instance, no screenshots of the Complainant’s websites have been provided). On the other hand, the Panel notes that the Complainant has been offering its services under the domain names and since as early as 1999, that the Infringing Website appears to offer information regarding online gambling services, in particular about the Complainant’s services, and that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s domain name. The Panel therefore finds it likely that the Respondent had the Complainant’s business in mind when it registered the Domain Name.
The Panel finds it furthermore likely that by using the Domain Name as described above, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or other location.
While not dispositive by itself, the fact that the e-mail address as listed in the WhoIs database for the Domain Name appears to be incorrect, supports the finding of bad faith on the part of the Respondent.
The Respondent has not filed a Response, and has therefore not provided any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s allegations.
Under these circumstances, and considering article 10.3 of the Regulations cited above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of article 2.1 of the Regulations. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with articles 1 and 14 of the Regulations, the Panel orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Willem J.H. Leppink
Panelist
Date: June 5, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy