bet365 Group Limited v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection
Claim Number: FA2107001956779
Complainant is bet365 Group Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Stuart Lester of Mishcon de Reya LLP, United Kingdom. Respondent is Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection (“Respondent”), Russia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bet365.ru.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant participated in the mandatory CentralNic Mediation, and the mediation process was terminated on July 24, 2021.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 27, 2021; the Forum received payment on July 27, 2021.
On Jul 27, 2021, Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bet365.ru.com> domain name is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the CentralNic Dispute Resolution Policy (the “CDRP Policy”)
On August 2, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 23, 2021 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@bet365.ru.com. Also on August 2, 2021, 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 August 25, 2021, 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 CDRP Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the CDRP Policy, CDRP Rules, the 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 is a United Kingdom company, founded in 2000, that runs one of the world’s largest online gambling businesses, through its website at www.bet365 and related websites. Complainant has rights in the BET365 mark through its registrations with numerous trademark authorities, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (e.g. Reg. No. 5,584,321, registered from January 11, 2018). Respondent’s <bet365.ru.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the “.ru” country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <bet365.ru.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the BET365 mark. Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the Domain Name to resolve to a website (“Respondent’s Website”) that offers online betting services that compete with Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <bet365.ru.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attracts internet users for commercial gain by passing off as Complainant and offering competing services on the Respondent’s Website.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the BET365 mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BET365 mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of 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 CDRP Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the CDRP 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.
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”). The Panel also notes that due to the similarity of the CDRP Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) it is appropriate to have regard to UDRP precedent in deciding this matter.
Complainant has rights in the BET365 mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 5,584,321, registered from January 11, 2018). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per CDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that the <bet365.ru.com> domain name is identical to the BET365 mark as it merely adds the “.ru” ccTLD and “.com” gTLD to Complainant’s wholly incorporated BET365 mark. The addition of a top-level domain (“TLD”) can be irrelevant when establishing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under CDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied CDRP 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 CDRP 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 BET365 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 the UDRP ¶ 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 UDRP¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection” 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 CDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding the Respondent used the Domain Name for a website that offers online betting services in direct competition with Complainant’s betting services under the BET365 mark (and through reproduction of Complainant’s green bet365 logo). The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers goods or services that compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). See also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied CDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, Jan. 17, 2021, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s BET365 mark since Complainant is a well-known entity in the field of online betting and the Respondent’s Website offered services in direct competition with Complainant and reproduced Complainant’s green bet365 logo. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under CDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s BET365 mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website offering online betting services that may mislead consumers into thinking that Respondent, or any service offered by the Respondent, is in some way connected to the Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under CDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). See also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied CDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the CDRP Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bet365.ru.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: August 26, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page