The Complainant is beIN Media Group LLC, Qatar, represented by Tmark Conseils, France.
The Respondent is Ali Sami, Egypt.
The disputed domain name <beinsport.online> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 29, 2021. On July 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 29, 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 August 4, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 5, 2021.
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 August 6, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 26, 2021. On August 6, 2021, the Respondent sent email communication to the Center but did not submit any formal response. On August 27, 2021, the Center informed the Parties that it will proceed to panel appointment.
The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 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 Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.
Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to the Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules, and without the benefit of a formal response from the Respondent.
The Complainant is beIN Media Group LLC, a Qatari company operating in the media market of broadcasting sport events and entertainment, and owning several trademark registrations for BEIN SPORT, including the following ones:
- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 010617082 for BEIN SPORT, registered on May 24, 2013;
- International Trademark Registration No. 1267842 for BEIN SPORT, registered on June 26, 2015;
- Egyptian Trademark Registration No. 270615 for BEIN SPORT, registered on June 11, 2014.
The Complainant also operates on the Internet, owning several domain names, the main one being <beinsports.com>.
The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.
The disputed domain name <beinsport.online> was registered on October 13, 2020, according to the WhoIs records, and the website at the disputed domain name is advertising sport events, by reproducing the Complainant’s trademark as well as referring to other sport broadcasters, which are the Complainant’s competitors.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark BEIN SPORT, as it fully incorporates its trademark.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark BEIN SPORT is distinctive and internationally known and the disputed domain name resolves to a website promoting sport events by making reference to the Complainant as well as to the Complainant’s competitors. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.
The Respondent has made no formal reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn (see, e.g., Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441; Microsoft Corporation v. Freak Films Oy, WIPO Case No. D2003-0109; SSL International PLC v. Mark Freeman, WIPO Case No. D2000-1080; Altavista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Limited et. al., WIPO Case No. D2000-0848; Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Nord Europe v. Marketing Total S.A., WIPO Case No. D2007-0288).
In this case, the Respondent submitted an informal email communication on August 6, 2021, without any accompanying evidence to support its claims. In this email, the Respondent stated the following:
“Hello.. First, I would like to point out your violation that we are not a profit organization, we are just a group of university students and we are doing a graduation project in sports media through this domain of ours. We ..confirm that we do not have any connection between the BN Sport brand. We do not use any advertising for the mentioned brand, only our brand is BN Online, and we do not wish to support the BN Media Group. I confirm that we are not a profit organization, this is only for an educational purpose and we support the fair use policy, and we do not have any extremist activities, only this is our graduation project and we ask you to support us in our graduation project, you are a large institution and we ask you not to direct any ban on us or ...anything that harms our educational future.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(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 Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark BEIN SPORT both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark BEIN SPORT.
It is well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain, in this case “.online”, may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See, WIPO Overview of Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
The Respondent has failed to file a formal Response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5.
The Complainant in its Complaint and as set out above has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the Respondent, who is not currently associated with the Complainant in any way, is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented sufficient evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name, and the Panel is unable to establish any such rights or legitimate interests on the basis of the evidence in front of it.
In fact, the Respondent, in the informal response of August 6, 2021, is basically stating that the content of the website at the disputed domain name consists of a graduation project in sport media done by a group of university students. However, by analyzing the content of the website at the disputed domain name, the Panel notes that the use of the Complainant’s trademark, the reference to the Complainant’s competitors, and the presence of several advertising banners cannot be considered as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, as it seems to be stated by the Respondent.
Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0., section 2.5.1.
Based on the facts of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark 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 location”.
Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark BEIN SPORT in the field of sport events and entertainment media broadcasting is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant and deliberately registered the disputed domain name.
The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also used in bad faith since on the relevant website the Complainant’s trademark is displayed, together with reference to the Complainant’s competitors, with the purpose of intentionally attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.
The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to take unfair advantage of, abuse, or otherwise engage in behavior detrimental to the Complainant’s trademark. See, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.
Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name, being identical to the Complainant’s trademark, affirms the Panel’s finding of bad faith in the present circumstances. See, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied.
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 <beinsport.online> be transferred to the Complainant.
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: September 15, 2021