The Complainant is Navasard Limited, Cyprus, internally represented.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy inc. Customer 12410263883, Canada / 1xbet Orongr, Morocco.
The disputed domain name <1xbet.marketing> is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 23, 2021. On September 23, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 23, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 24, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Center sent a formal reminder to the Complainant on October 5, 2021. No amendment to the Complaint was received.
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 8, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 28, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 31, 2021.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on November 5, 2021. 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.
The Complainant is a limited company registered in Cyprus. It is a provider of online sports betting services under the name and trademark 1XBET and licenses that trademark to other sports betting providers.
The Complainant is the owner of European Union Trade Mark registration number 104227681 for the word mark 1XBET, registered on September 21, 2015 in International Classes 45, 31 and 42.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 23, 2021. It does not appear to have resolved to any active website.
The Complainant submits that it has used its 1XBET trademark since March 2015 and that the disputed domain name is identical to that trademark.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its 1XBET trademark, that the Respondent has not been known by that name and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It states that the Respondent can only have registered the disputed domain name with the intention of diverting potential clients of the Complainant by virtue of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. It contends that the Respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain name should not prevent a finding of bad faith.
The Complainant also submits evidence of abuse reports which it submitted to the Registrar in June 2021 and states that no response to these notifications was received.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are that:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The disputed domain name comprises the term “1xbet”, which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark 1XBET, together with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.marketing”, which is to be disregarded for the purpose of comparison under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence of rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Panel accepts that Complainant’s evidence that it has used its 1XBET trademark in commerce since 2015 and also finds that mark to be distinctive in nature. In these circumstances, and in view of the lack of any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel infers that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the commercial goodwill attaching to that trademark.
The Panel also finds the disputed domain name to be inherently misleading. Although the effect of the gTLD “.marketing” may be considered in connection with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Panel finds that that gTLD does not materially distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark, particularly in circumstances where the Complainant’s commercial activities include the licensing of that trademark. The Panel is unable in the circumstances to conceive of any use that the Respondent might make of the disputed domain name that would not be likely to constitute an impersonation of the Complainant.
It is unimportant in these circumstances that the Respondent has made no active use of the disputed domain name to date (see e.g. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
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, <1xbet.marketing>, be transferred to the Complainant.
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: November 17, 2021
1 Paragraph 1 of the UDRP Rules defines a respondent as “the holder of a domain name registration against which a complaint is initiated”. Here, the Complaint was filed against “Contact Privacy inc. Customer 12410263883”, a privacy service found in the publicly available WhoIs details for the disputed domain name. On September 24, 2021, the Complainant was provided registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, naming “1xbet Orongr” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, and invited to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant did not amend the Complaint to include this information, however, on the evidence before the Panel, and pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 10(a), the Panel finds that the Respondent has employed a privacy service and shall be recorded as “Contact Privacy inc. Customer 12410263883 / 1xbet Orongr”. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.4.5.