dname2007-00001

WIPO

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited v. Thanh Nguyen van

Case No. DNAME2007-00001

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited, of Middlesex, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Rouse Legal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Respondent is Thanh Nguyen van, of Dacice, Czech Republic.

2. The Registration and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ladbrokes.name> is registered with Dotregistrar.com LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 5, 2007. On June 12, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Dotregistrar.com LLC (through the registrar-nominated legal department of Dotster, Inc.) a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On June 12, 2007 and June 13, 2007, Dotregistrar.com LLC (through the registrar-nominated legal department of Dotster, Inc.) transmitted by email to the Center its verification responses confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details, and inter alia confirming the expiration date for the disputed domain name. The Complainant filed a brief amendment to the Complaint on June 13, 2007 correcting a typographical error. The Center verified that the Complaint (and amendment to Complaint) satisfied the formal requirements of the Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy for .NAME (the “ERDRP Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental ERDRP Rules”).

In accordance with the ERDRP Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint (and amendment to Complaint), and the proceedings commenced on June 21, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 10, 2007. On June 21, 2007, the Center received a brief email communication from the address specified in the WhoIs and confirmed by the registrar as being a contact email for the disputed domain name, and signed “Thanh”. The Center subsequently acknowledged receipt of the email communication, noting that as no subsequent (or indeed formal response document) had been received by the date specified for response, the Center would now proceed to appointment of an Administrative Panel.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on August 6, 2007. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited, was incorporated in 1963 and owns over 2,500 retail betting shops in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium and Italy. Complainant’s core business includes over-the-counter and betting terminals in its Ladbrokes shops and online betting and gaming services and financial betting and gaming including sports book, casino and poker features. Complainant has nearly two (2) million registered users of the following gaming websites in at least 200 countries:

“http://www.ladbrokes.com”;

“http://www.ladbrokescasino.com”;

“http://www.ladbrokespoker.com”;

“http://ladbrokesgames.com”; and

“http://ladbrokesbingo.com”.

A trademark registration for LADBROKES was granted in the United Kingdom on January 22, 1993 as Registration No. 1,294,512 and the trademark registration for LADBROKE was granted in the United Kingdom on December 29, 1995 as Registration No. 2,004,802.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the Registered Name does not satisfy the Eligibility Requirements of the ERDRP and was registered in violation of the requirements.

With respect to ERDRP, paragraph 4(b)(i), Complainant states that the name corresponding to the Registered Name is not the Respondent’s legal name. The Respondent is an individual whose legal name is Thanh Nguyen van.

With respect to ERDRP, paragraph 4(b)(ii), Complainant states that the name corresponding to the Registered Name is not the name of a fictional character in which the Respondent has trademark or service mark rights. To the best of Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has no trademark or service mark rights in respect of the Registered Name nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the LADBROKES trademark.

With respect to ERDRP, paragraph 4(b)(iii), Complainant states that Ladbrokes is not a common name and the Respondent as an individual has not been commonly known by the name corresponding to the Registered Name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent submitted an e-mail to the Center on June 21, 2007, stating he is not the owner of the Registered Name. As stated above in the Procedural History, the Registrar for the disputed domain name has verified that the Respondent is the current registrant. The Respondent did not submit a substantive response to these proceedings.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Respondent registered the Domain Name at issue as a Personal Name domain name. The Complainant brought this Complaint under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the ERDRP, on the ground that the Respondent does not satisfy the Eligibility Requirements for a Personal Name domain name registration.

Pursuant to the ERDRP, paragraph 4(b), the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the name corresponding to the Registered Name is not the Respondent’s legal name; (ii) the name corresponding to the Registered Name is not the name of a fictional character in which the Respondent has trademark or service mark rights; and

(iii) the Respondent as an individual has not been commonly known by the name corresponding to the Registered Name.

A. Respondent’s Legal Name

According to the domain name registrar for the Domain Name at issue, the registrant of the Domain Name is “Thanh Nguyen van”. It must be assumed in the absence of any evidence or allegation to the contrary, that this is the legal name of the Respondent. Since “ladbrokes” is not the legal name of the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden of proof for the first element under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the ERDRP.

B. Fictional Character in Which The Respondent Has Trademark or Service Mark Rights

The Complainant has stated that “ladbrokes” is not the name of a fictional character in which the Respondent has trademark or service mark rights. Since the Respondent has not provided any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden of proof for the second element under paragraph4(b)(ii) of the ERDRP.

C. Name by which the Respondent is Commonly Known

The Complainant asserts that “ladbrokes” is not the name by which the Respondent, as an individual, has been commonly known. In the absence of any evidence from the Respondent to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden of proof for the third element under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the ERDRP.

D. Complainant’s Eligibility for the Registered Name as a Defensive Registration

The Complainant requests that the contested Registered Name be registered in its name as Defensive Registration. For this remedy to be available the Complainant must meet the Common Defensive Registration Eligibility Requirements by satisfying the requirements of paragraph 5(f)(i)(C) ERDRP.

According to paragraph 2(b) of the Eligibility Requirements for Phase I Defensive Registrations of the .NAME Restrictions, the name must correspond to a valid and enforceable trademark or services mark registration having national effect that issued prior to April 16, 2001, in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has submitted evidence of its rights in the United Kingdom registration of the wordmark LADBROKES, having been registered before April 16, 2001. This wordmark is identical to the domain name at issue. Consequently, the Complainant satisfies the requirements of paragraph 5(f)(i)(C) of the ERDRP and has demonstrated its eligibility for a Defensive Registration for the challenged .NAME Registration.

7. Decision

The Panel finds that the Complainant has proven each of the three elements in paragraph 4(b) of the ERDRP in relation to the <ladbrokes.name> domain name. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 5(f) of the ERDRP and paragraph 15 of the ERDRP Rules, and in accordance with the request of the Complainant contained in the Complaint, the Panel orders that the .NAME Registration <ladbrokes.name> be cancelled in the name of the Respondent and registered as a Defensive Registration in the name of the Complainant, provided that upon cancellation of the Registered Name the Complainant pays any applicable registration fees and satisfies other applicable Common Defensive Registration Eligibility requirements.

Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist

Dated: August 21, 2007