Kindred IP Limited v. George Davies
Claim Number: FA1912001874463
Complainant is Kindred IP Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Gevers Legal NV, Belgium. Respondent is George Davies (“Respondent”), Great Britain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <unibet.us>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 10, 2019; the Forum received payment on December 10, 2019.
On December 11, 2019, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <unibet.us> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 12, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 2, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@unibet.us. Also on December 12, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 6, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Kindred IP Limited, is an online gambling operator which offers products such as online casino games, online poker, online bingo and sports betting. Complainant has rights in the UNIBET mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and other trademark agencies around the world (e.g. Reg. No. 5,791,981, registered July 2, 2019, Reg. No. 736157, registered June 15, 2000). Respondent’s <unibet.us> domain name is identical to Complainant’s UNIBET mark. Respondent’s domain name contains the mark in its entirety and adds the “.us” country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <unibet.us> domain name as Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its UNIBET mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the Domain Name is being used to host a parked page with pay-per-click links which redirect to sites related and unrelated to Complainant’s business.
Respondent registered and used the <unibet.us> domain name in bad faith by displaying pay-per-click links redirecting to Complainant’s competitors. Respondent also creates a likelihood of confusion with Internet users that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the UNIBET mark. The Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s UNIBET mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant asserts rights in the UNIBET mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).
The Panel finds that the <unibet.us> domain name is identical to Complainant’s UNIBET mark at it wholly reproduces the UNIBET mark and adds the “.us” ccTLD. This change is insufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from the UNIBET mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because the domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the UNIBET mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “George Davies” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name resolves to a parking page featuring pay-per-click advertisements, including advertisements that link to Complainant’s competitors, for which the Respondent is likely to receive revenue. This is not a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business); see also Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, December 6, 2002, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s UNIBET mark as it would be unlikely for a party to register a domain name that is identical to the UNIBET mark (5 years after the Complainant commenced use of the UNIBET mark) and redirect it to a pay-per-click website with links to Complainant’s competitors absent any awareness of Complainant and its UNIBET mark (and intention to capitalize on Complainant’s reputation in its UNIBET mark). In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel, while noting that the Policy only requires a Respondent to have registered or used a domain name in bad faith, finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s UNIBET Mark for commercial gain by using the Domain Name to resolve to a website containing advertisements and links to competitor and other third party websites for commercial gain. Use of an identical or confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 3M Company v. Nguyen Hoang Son / Bussiness and Marketing, FA1408001575815 (Forum Sept. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host sponsored advertisements for Amazon, through which the respondent presumably profited, indicated that the respondent had used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA1404001557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <unibet.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: January 8, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page