The Complainant is Singapore Pools (Private) Limited of Singapore, represented by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Singapore.
The Respondent is James Smith of Jakarta, Indonesia.
The disputed domain name <singpools.com> is registered with Launchpad.com Inc. (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 25, 2016. On January 25, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 26, 2016, 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.
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 January 29, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 18, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 19, 2016.
The Center appointed Desmond J. Ryan as the sole panelist in this matter on February 25, 2016. 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 disputed domain name was created on November 9, 2015.
The Complainant is a lottery and sports betting organization established in 1968, and is the only organization legally entitled to offer such services in Singapore. It is the owner of trademark registrations comprising the words SINGAPORE POOLS and S device registered since September 28, 1999, in international classes 16 and 41 and since 1996 in international classes 28 and 36. The Complainant operates its official website at “www.singaporepools.com.sg” where the Complainant’s trademark is prominently displayed. At that website the Complainant offers lottery and sports betting services and provides information regarding sporting fixtures and results.
No information is available concerning the Respondent. A copy of the Complaint forwarded by courier to the Respondent at the address shown in the Whois for the disputed domain name could not be delivered and the Complainant has adduced evidence to show that the address and contact telephone number provided in the Whois for the disputed domain name are invalid.
At the time of lodgment of the Complaint the disputed domain name resolved to a website purporting to show Singapore Lottery and Sporting Results in a table comprising columns headed “Day”, “Date” and “Result”; the result column however, does not appear to indicate results of any relevant lottery draw or sporting result, but merely lists, for each date, a four digit number.
According to the Complainant, other links shown at the webpage for example, “Login”, “Sign Up” and “About Us” were inactive. The Complainant asserts that the webpage incorporates its S device trademark as a favicon.
The disputed domain name currently resolves to a blank page.
The Complainant contends as follows:
1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complaint’s trademark SINGAPORE POOLS and to its registered trademarks comprising the words SINGAPORE POOLS and an S device.
2. The word “Sing” is a commonly used abbreviation of Singapore used in other Singapore based companies such as SingTel and SingPost.
3. There is no relation between the Complainant and the Respondent, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the use of its trademark in the disputed domain name.
4. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in offering of bona fide goods or services. According to the Complainant the content of the website at the disputed domain name is essentially meaningless, devoid of legitimate purpose and is false and misleading.
5. The Respondent has provided false information in relation to its address and contact telephone numbers indicating registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
6. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct to a website showing meaningless and misleading information is, in combination with the provision of false contact information, equivalent to “passive holding” of the disputed domain name which was held to be evidence of bad faith use in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The Complainant also asserts that its SINGAPORE POOLS and S device trademark has been reproduced as a favicon on the website at the disputed domain name.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
The Complainant has demonstrated registered trademark rights in a composite mark of which the dominant particular, and the name by which the composite mark would most likely be known, comprises the words SINGAPORE POOLS. Further, the Complainant asserts, and the Respondent has not denied that the words SINGAPORE POOLS per se, is a well-known mark. The Complainant also asserts that the abbreviation “Sing” for Singapore is commonly used and provides examples of other large Singapore based corporations using this abbreviation in their names and trademarks including, SingTel and SingPost.
In considering the question of confusing similarity for the purpose of comparison with a disputed domain name graphic elements of a mark, which cannot be reproduced in a domain name, should not be given much weight particularly in the case where, as here, the verbal elements are prominent and would likely be the name by which the mark is referred to. In the Panel’s view an Internet user would be likely to conclude that the disputed domain name belonged to the Complainant or was at least connected with it.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
At the time the disputed domain name was created in November 2015, the Complainant had been in existence and had used its trademark SINGAPORE POOLS for more than 40 years and held registrations of a device mark including that trademark for over 20 years. The content of the Respondent’s webpage purporting to display the results, albeit fictitious, of Singapore sporting events and lottery draws strongly suggests that at the time of registering the disputed domain name the Respondent was well aware of the existence of the Complainant and its reputation in its SINGAPORE POOLS trademark. As more fully discussed below, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage displaying fictitious results is use in bad faith and therefore cannot be categorized as a use in the offering of bona fide goods or services in accordance with Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. As the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark, the use which has been made cannot be characterized as noncommercial or fair, and there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, the Complainant has established a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not attempted to rebut that prima facie showing.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
As noted in paragraph 6B above the disputed domain name was created many years after the Complainant established its rights and reputation in its SINGPORE POOLS name and trademarks and the subsequent use of the disputed domain name to direct to a page purporting to show the results of Singapore Pools lottery draws and of sporting events for which the Complainant offers betting services strongly implies that at the time of registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent had in mind the Complainant and the services which it provides. The Respondent has offered no information to explain why it chose the disputed domain name. The strong inference is that it did so to attract to its website Internet users familiar with the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant has annexed to the Complaint evidence from Google maps indicating that the address given for the Respondent in the Whois for the disputed domain name does not exist. This is further borne out by the fact the courier appointed by the Center to transmit a copy of the Complaint to the Respondent could not be delivered. The Complainant has also produced evidence from the website “www.phone-validator.net” showing that the telephone number provided for the Respondent at the Whois for the disputed domain name is invalid.
On the basis of this evidence the Panel can conclude that the registration of the disputed domain name was in bad faith.
As discussed above, the Respondent’s only use of the disputed domain name has been to direct to a webpage containing fictitious tables of results from sporting events and from Singapore Pools lottery draws. The Respondent’s purpose in so doing is obscure. In the Complainant’s submission, it is “not possible to conceive of any plausible, actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate” (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra. The Panel accepts that submission and concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the most likely explanation is that the Respondent’s current use of the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website is in preparation for future use of the website for commercial gain by, for example, sponsored advertising links. In any event, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to provide fictitious sporting and betting results is of itself use in bad faith even if it might not fall specifically within the categories of bad faith enumerated in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. The Complainant has argued that the Respondent’s present conduct amounts to passive holding in accordance with the finding of the Panel in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows cited above. Whilst that is not precisely the case in view of the fact that at the time of filing the Complaint the disputed domain name was active in the sense that it pointed to a website containing material content, the use which was being made of the disputed domain name by the Respondent at that time may be regarded as analogous to such passive holding. That combined with the other indicators of bad faith such as the provision of a false address and a false telephone number leads to the conclusion that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.
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 <singpools.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Desmond J. Ryan AM
Sole Panelist
Date: March 2, 2016