The Complainant is Mr Green Ltd of Silemma, Malta, represented by Ports Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Global Internet, Global Internet Development of Leigh On Sea, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Internet Vikings Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 27, 2018. On March 27, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On April 16, 2018, 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. On April 17, 2018, the Center transmitted a request for the Complainant to correct the name of the Registrar of the Dispute Domain Name in the Complaint. The Complainant subsequently submitted an amended Complaint to the Center on April 19, 2018.
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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 20, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 10, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 11, 2018.
The Center appointed Pablo Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on May 28, 2018. 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 casino company, founded in 2007. The Complainant offers an online casino from its website at “”, in which there are almost 1000 games from different casino suppliers.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the trademark MR GREEN worldwide. Among others, the Complainant is the owner of the following trademark Registrations:
- International trademark MR GREEN, Registration No. 1210675, registered on February 24, 2014,
- European Union trademark MR GREEN, Registration No. 006678461, registered on February 19, 2009,
- Canadian trademark MR GREEN, Registration No. TMA947128, registered on August 23, 2016.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 29, 2016.
At the time of filing the Complaint the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website that contained comments about the Complainant using the trademark MR GREEN including its logotypes. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Disputed Domain Name uses the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.nu”, which is not relevant for the assessment of confusingly similarity.
Rights or legitimate interest
The Complainant has not granted any licenses or other rights to the Respondent to use the trademark
MR GREEN in the Disputed Domain Name or to register any domain name which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant visited the Disputed Domain Name on March 15, 2018 and concluded that there is no evidence of any legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name for any activity or business.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Also, the Respondent used the trademark MR GREEN including logotypes, without authorization from the Complainant in the content of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Disputed Domain Name.
Registration and use in bad faith
The Complainant has been using their trademarks for many years, and registered their trademarks long before the Disputed Domain Name was registered.
In view of the content of the website and the behavior of the Respondent, it is clear that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s prior rights and business when registering the Disputed Domain Name.
The Disputed Domain Name is not being used as a genuine, noncommercial website, but is rather simply a pretext for cybersquatting. It is also important to know that the Complainant has been in contact with the Respondent a few years ago, but the Complainant has never given their authorization to use their trademark as a domain name.
Due to this pattern of conduct, it is obvious that the Respondent intentionally created likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and websites in order to attract Internet users for its own commercial gain.
Even though the content on the Disputed Domain Name changed after the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant, bad faith still remains, since the Disputed Domain Name still infringes on the Complainant’s trademark rights, and consciously disturbs and hinders the business of the Complainant. Besides, the Respondent neither answered to the cease and desist letter nor to the reminder. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name at issue in this case:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has trademarks rights over the term MR GREEN.
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complaint’s trademark MR GREEN. The Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark as its only distinctive element.
Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainant’s MR GREEN trademark in its entirety; the addition of the TLD “.nu” does not change this finding, since the TLD is generally disregarded in such an assessment of confusingly similarity.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name:
(i). Before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) You (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) You are 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 or service at issue.
There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the trademark in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has prior rights in the trademark which precede the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Name.
The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but it did not reply to the Complainant’s contention.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or any similar name. Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name is being used to misleadingly divert consumers. The Panel accepts, in the absence of any Response, that the use to which the Disputed Domain Name has been put is simply a pretext for cybersquatting. Furthermore, the Respondent used the trademarks and logotypes of the Complainant without authorization.
As such the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
The Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive; the Respondent was well aware of the Complainants prior rights and business, since the Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 29, 2016, while the Complainant had the registration of one of its trademarks since 2008.
With respect to the domain name registration, the Complainant states that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation at the time the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name since they had been in contact a few years ago. Nevertheless, the Complainant has never given its authorization to use its trademark in the Disputed Domain Name.
Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the Complainant in Annex 6 shows that the Respondent is using metatags containing the trademark MR GREEN in the source code of the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves. Internet users searching for the Complainant’s trademark may therefore, as a result of the metatags, be directed to the Respondent’s website.
The Respondent has not denied these assertions because of its defaults. In view of this, the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and prior rights.
Due to this pattern of conduct, the Panel infers that the Respondent has likely registered the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to the Complainant for valuable consideration. The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its website creating a likelihood of confusion with the MR GREEN trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, and in doing so is disrupting the business of the Complainant.
Therefore, taking all circumstances into account and for all above reasons, the Panel concludes that there is bad faith in the use and registration of the Disputed Domain Name, disturbing the business of the Complainant.
The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is, therefore, satisfied. 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.
Pablo Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: June 11, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy