About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Realm Entertainment Limited v. Ahmet Turk

Case No. D2015-0965

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Realm Entertainment Limited of Ta’Xbiex, Malta, represented by Domain and Intellectual Property Consultants, DIPCON AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Ahmet Turk of Istanbul, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bets10mobile.biz> is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 8, 2015. On June 8, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 8, 2015, 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 16, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 6, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 9, 2015.

The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on July 16, 2015. 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 language of the proceeding is English.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a Maltese entity operating, since 2011, an online gaming business under the trademark BETS10. According to its assertions, the Complainant’s website “www.bets10.com” has 18 million active poker players, providing the largest poker network in the world.

The Complainant holds trademark registrations for the trademark BETS10, as follows:

- the Community Trademark registration number 009941139 of September 14, 2011 covering services in classes 36, 38, 41; and

- the Community Trademark registration number 012403713 of May 5, 2014 covering services in classes 36, 38, 41.

The disputed domain name <bets10mobile.biz> was registered on December 19, 2014 and, at the time of filing the Complaint, was used for providing gambling information and hosting sponsored links to competitors of the Complainant. Such website also reproduced, without authorization, the Complainant’s trademark BETS10.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark BETS10, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In view of the absence of any reply to the Complaint by the Respondent, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are shown:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and

(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has rights in the BETS10 trademark, holding registrations since 2011.

The dominant part of the disputed domain name <bets10mobile.biz> incorporates the Complainant’s trademark BETS10 in its entirety. In addition to this, the disputed domain name contains the generic term “mobile”.

Numerous UDRP panels have considered that the addition of generic wording to trademarks in a domain name is not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity and does not change the overall impression of the domain name as being connected to a complainant’s trademark. See paragraph 1.9 of theWIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).

Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that generic Top-Level Domains (e.g., “.com”, “.net”, “.org” or, in this case, “.biz”) are typically irrelevant to the consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name.

Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <bets10mobile.biz> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BETS10, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that it has given no authorization to the Respondent to use its trademark; at the time of filing the Complaint the website corresponding to the disputed domain name was used in connection with betting activities, providing also links to websites of the Complainant’s competitors. In line with previous UDRP decisions made in similar circumstances, the Panel accepts that the Complainant has provided a prima facie case of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name, and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent.

The Respondent chose not to challenge the Complainant’s allegations. There is no evidence before the Panel to support the contrary, and therefore the Panel accepts these arguments as facts.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <bets10mobile.biz>, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The trademark BETS10 has been registered as a Community Trademark since 2011 and used worldwide via the Complainant’s website “www.bets10.com” for online gambling.

The disputed domain name <bets10mobile.biz> was registered in December 2014 and incorporates the BETS10 trademark and the generic non-distinctive term “mobile”.

At the time of filing the Complaint the disputed domain name resolved to a website providing information about betting activities, containing links to the Complainant’s competitors’ websites and reproducing, without approval, the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark. These facts support the inference that the purpose of the Respondent’s diversion of traffic from the Complainant to itself via confusion with the Complainant’s mark is for the Respondent’s own commercial gain, at the same time being likely to damage the Complainant’s business and reputation. Such facts constitute bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

This Panel finds the above convincing evidence that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s business and trademark when registering the disputed domain name.

Also, the Respondent did not respond to the Complaint nor to the Complainant’s letter sent prior to commencing the present procedure. Furthermore, it appears that the contact details provided to the Registrar are false since the hard copy notification documents for this case were undeliverable to the Respondent due to an apparently fake address. Given the other circumstances of the case, such behavior may be considered as further evidence of bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name.

For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name <bets10mobile.biz> in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).

7. Decision

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 <bets10mobile.biz> be transferred to the Complainant.

Marilena Comanescu
Sole Panelist
Date: July 27, 2015

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/