URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Novomatic AG v. Dzmitry Dziauho
Claim Number: FA1510001641973


DOMAIN NAME

<gaminator.top>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Novomatic AG of Gumpoldskirchen, Austria
  
Complainant Representative: GEISTWERT (TM) = Kletzer Messner Mosing Schnider Schultes Attorneys-at-Law OG Max Mosing of Vienna, Austria

   Respondent: Dzmitry Dziauho Dzmitry Dziauho of Minsk, II, BY
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.
   Registrars: 101Domain

EXAMINER


   The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
   Saravanan Dhandapani, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: October 12, 2015
   Commencement: October 13, 2015
   Default Date: October 28, 2015
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION


   Procedural Findings:  
      Multiple Complainants: No multiple Complainants are involved in this proceeding. This Complaint and findings relate to the domain name <gaminator.top>. No domain name is dismissed from this Complaint.
      Multiple Respondents: No multiple Respondents are involved in this proceeding. This Complaint and findings relate to the domain name <gaminator.top>. No domain name is dismissed from this Complaint.

   Findings of Fact: Complainant has claimed that it owns the international word-mark “GAMINATOR” and it was registered on October 02, 2006 predominantly for gambling-related goods and services. Currently, the domain <gaminator.top> does not offer any content and Complainant sent a prior warning letter to Respondent through its counsel to which the Respondent responded that he is unaware of the domain <gaminator.top> although it is registered in his name and further stated not only denying any involvement in registration of such domain name but also disowned the email id petercash@gmail.com and phone number +375.0296342744. It is also claimed by the Complainant that the actual registrant hides behind the registered owner i.e., the Respondent and hence the registration of <gamintor.top> was in bad faith.

  

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.


[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant has proved by documentary evidences that they are the registered owner of word-mark “GAMINATOR” predominantly for gambling related goods and services. As noted, the disputed domain name <gamintor.top> composes “gaminator” and “.top”. “gaminator” is indentical to Complainant’s word-mark “GAMINATOR”. The “.top” is a generic code top-level domain name (gTLD) suffix. It is non-distinctive and is incapable of differentiating the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademark. Based on the “GAMINATOR” being a word-mark of the Complainant, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.1(i) covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


No doubt, the disputed domain name has been registered in the name of the Respondent. On the other hand, the Complainant owns word-mark “GAMINATOR” since October 02, 2006 and enjoying the protection in Belarus. The Complainant’s adoption and first use of the registered word-mark is for about a decade ago. In such case, the burden lies on the Respondent to prove that he has legitimate rights and/or interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is in default and has not filed any response. Although, the Complainant is not entitled to relief simply by default of the Respondent to submit a Response, the Examiner can however and does draw evidentiary inferences from the failure of the Respondent to respond. Be that as it may, it is the specific case of the Complainant that they had sent a prior warning letter, through their counsel, on April 10, 2015 to the Respondent and that the Respondent had sent a reply by email on the same day stating that he is unaware of the domain <gaminator.top> although it is registered in his name and further stated not only denying any involvement in registration of such domain name but also disowned the email id petercash@gmail.com and phone number +375.0296342744 as the same are unfamiliar to him. In view of the above, the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights and legitimate interest and that the Respondent has completely disowned the registration of such domain name by him. Based on the record, the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Hence, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.2 covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint and that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or 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 that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


As noted above, the Respondent disowns the registration of the disputed domain name and it is clear that the actual registrant hides behind the registered owner. It is well established that the registration and use of the disputed domain name must involve malafides where the registration and use of it was continues to be made in full knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights in the “GAMINATOR” word-mark, and in circumstances where the registrant did not seek permission from the Complainant, as the owner of word-mark, for such registration and use. Thus the Panel Examiner comes to irresistible determination due to the facts that (i) the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s “GAMINATOR” word-mark; (ii) the Respondent’s/Registrant’s name does not correspond to the disputed domain name; (iii) the Respondent/Registrant was aware of the Complainant and its word-mark when it registered the disputed the domain name; (iv) there is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s mark. Hence, it is lawful to conclude that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Thus the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.3 (a) and (d) covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. gaminator.top

 

Saravanan Dhandapani
Examiner
Dated: October 29, 2015

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page