WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Cube Limited v. Domain Administrator / Xinping Wang and Super Privacy Service Ltd c/o Dynadot

Case No. D2020-0382

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Cube Limited of Isle of Man, represented by Farrer & Co., United Kingdom.

The Respondents are Domain Administrator, United States of America / Xinping Wang, China and Super Privacy Service Ltd c/o Dynadot, United States of America.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain names <188188600.net>, <188188300.net>, <188188400.net>, <188188100.net>, <188188800.net>, <188188200.net>, <188188500.net>, <188188700.net>, and <188188900.net> are registered with Dynadot, LLC; the disputed domain names <188015.cc>, <188188100.com>, <188188200.com>, <188188300.com>, <188188400.com>, <188188500.com>, <188188600.com>, <188188700.com>, <188188800.com>, <188188900.com>, <188450.com>, <188player.com>, <188079.net>, <188450.net>, <188752.net>, <188804.net>, <w188.net>, <188003.cc>, <188013.cc>, <188079.cc>, <188348.cc>, <188450.cc>, <188804.cc>, <188ball.cc>, <188gg.cc>, <jbb002.cc>, <jbb72.cc>, <jbb222.info>, <jbb33.xyz>, and <jbb988.co> are registered with NameSilo, LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 18, 2020. On February 19, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 19 and 20, 2020, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 21, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and inviting the Complainant to amend the Complaint adding the Registrar-disclosed registrants as formal Respondents and provide relevant arguments including any evidence demonstrating that all named Respondents are, in fact, the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control; and/or file a separate complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint February 26, 2020. On March 2, 2020, the Center requested the Complainant to submit a clarification regarding the mutual jurisdiction. On the same day, the Complainant submitted such clarification.

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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 2, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 22, 2020. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default March 23, 2020. However, the Center received email communications from one of the Respondents on March 24 and 27, 2020, and sent to the Parties and email regarding possible settlement on March 24, 2020. The Complainant did not comment on the latter email, therefore, the Center notified to the Parties that it was proceeding to panel appointment on March 27, 2020.

The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on April 2, 2020. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant provides betting products and services as well as live casino and traditional casino entertainment services online through its webpage available at <188bet.com>. It is the owner, amongst several others (Annex 3.1 to the Complaint), of the following trademark registrations and applications:

- European Union Trademark Registration No. 008390379 for the word mark 188 filed on June 26, 2009, registered on March 22, 2010, successively renewed, in international classes 9, 28, 41, and 42;

- European Union Trademark Registration No. 008425324 for the word mark 188BET filed on July 14, 2009, registered on March 22, 2010, successively renewed, in international classes 9, 28, 41, and 42;

- European Union Trademark Registration No. 008449597 for the word & device mark 188BET filed on July 3, 2009, registered on March 22, 2010, successively renewed, in international classes 9, 28, 41, and 42;

- United Kingdom Trademark Application No. 3421782 for the word mark JBB filed on August 16, 2019, and registered on November 15, 2019 in international classes 9, 28, 41, and 42; and

- United Kingdom Trademark Application No. 3421785 for the word mark JBBBET filed on August 16, 2019 and registered on November 15, 2019 in international classes 9, 28, 41, and 42.

The disputed domain names are the following and are presently used in connection with:

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant claims to provide online betting products and services to a significant global customer base, mostly located in Asia, where the Complainant’s trademarks are recognized, through the webpage available at <188bet.com> which receives a monthly average of over 1 million unique visitors and an average of over 30 million views per month. The 188 and 188BET trademarks, state the Complainant, were first used in 2005 and its website is available in different languages.

According to the Complainant, its 188BET trademark can be translated into simplified Chinese script characters which can be translated as “188Jinbao bó" in words or “188JBB” as an acronym or abridged version thereof, which it has used for a long time (Annex 3.3 to the Complaint).

Furthermore, the Complainant points out that it extensively sponsors activities such as the English Premier League football clubs which is broadcasted in 212 territories with a global TV audience estimated at 4.7 billion people.

The Complainant submits that regardless of the fact that the disputed domain names have different recorded registrants, all of the disputed domain names should be dealt with under one Complaint given that the disputed domain names:

i. observe a naming pattern/similarity;

ii. have the same relevant IP addresses name servers or webhosts, directing to one of three IP addresses;

iii. all of the 39 disputed domain names direct Internet users to active betting/gaming websites which look identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s, and which prominently incorporate its branding, corporate information as well as displaying:

1. the Complainant’s 188, 188BET, and 188BET & device trademarks;

2. the translation of the Complainant’s trademarks;

3. the same pop up advertisement displaying the Complainant’s translated trademarks;

4. the Complainant’s name and previous company address;

5. the logo of the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission from which the Complainant holds a license to conduct its online gaming business;

6. the logo of two English Premier League football clubs with whom the Complainant has been associated through sponsoring;

7. a fraudulent copyright notice.

Under the Complainant’s view, the disputed domain names incorporate either the 188 or JBB trademarks, being confusingly similar therewith, not being the addition of other numerals, letters and/or descriptive terms sufficient to minimize the risk of confusion to Internet users associating them with the Complainant or its trademarks.

Regarding the absence of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant argues that:

i. the use made of the disputed domain names by the Respondents purporting to be operated by the Complainant and offering a range of services unconnected to it, does not characterize a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy;

ii. it has not granted the Respondents permission to display the Complainant’s trademarks in the websites associated with the disputed domain names, not being the Respondents licensees of the Complainant, nor having received any consent, express or implied to do so, nor there being any connection or affiliation between the Parties;

iii. the Respondents do not own any registered rights identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks;

iv. the Respondents unquestionably are aware of the Complainant, indicating the Complainant’s address on the footers of the websites available at the disputed domain names, seeking the Respondents to give the impression of being the Complainant or connected to it;

v. the Respondents are not commonly known by the disputed domain names and the registration and use of the disputed domain names containing the Complainant’s trademarks took place without the Complainant’s consent; and

vi. the disputed domain names have not been and could never be put to legitimate use by the Respondents.

As to the registration and use of the disputed domain names the Complainant states that:

i. given the Complainant’s significant global reputation, and the fraudulent copyright notice in the webpages available at the disputed domain names, the Respondents evidently knew of the Complainant’s prior rights before registering the disputed domain names;

ii. the use of a proxy agent a further indication of the Respondents’ bad faith and attempt to conceal their true identity;

iii. the use made of the disputed domain names by the Respondents characterizes a clear attempt to attract, for commercial gain, consumers by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement to the Respondents’ counterfeit services offered at the fraudulent websites available at the disputed domain names.

iv. by having registered a number of domain names, the Respondents engaged in a pattern of conduct preventing the Complainant from reflecting its trademarks in the disputed domain names and disrupting the Complainant’s business; and

v. the Respondents has been found of registering 30 other domain names in bad faith in a past UDRP procedure (Cube Limited v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / xinping wang / chongqing huang / lihong chen / ribiao xie, WIPO Case No. D2019-2901).

B. Respondent

The Respondents did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. On March 24, 2020, one of the Respondents sent an email asking what could be done and on March 27, 2020, sent a second informal communication to the Center inquiring whether it would be possible to make modifications and save the disputed domain names.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Request for consolidation

The Complainant has requested the consolidation of all disputed domain names in this proceeding arguing that they are under common control.

Section 4.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) establishes that “[i]n assessing whether a complaint filed by multiple complainants may be brought against a single respondent, panels look at whether (i) the complainants have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants in a similar fashion, and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation.”

All of the aforementioned criteria are present in this case and therefore this Panel accepts such request considering that it would be more procedurally efficient to have the 39 disputed domain names dealt with at the same procedure given that all of them direct Internet users to active betting websites which look identical and equally reproduce and target the Complainant’s activities and trademarks; this case presents more than sufficient indications that the disputed domain names are under common control.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established rights over the trademarks 188, 188BET, JBB, and JBBBET (Annex 3 to the Complaint).

The disputed domain names, according to the chart below all incorporate at least one of these trademarks and bear the addition of either a numeral or a descriptive term.

Given that the disputed domain names “contain sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark” such additional numeric or descriptive terms do not avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy, as recognized by the WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.8 and 1.12.

For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that may indicate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. These circumstances are:

i. before any notice of the dispute, the Respondents’ use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

ii. the Respondents (as individuals, businesses, or other organizations) have been commonly known by the disputed domain names, in spite of not having acquired trademark or service mark rights; or

iii. the Respondents are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Respondents, in not formally responding to the Complaint, have failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. This entitles the Panel to draw any inferences from such default as it considers appropriate, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is still on the Complainant to make at least a prima facie case against the Respondents under the second UDRP element.

According to the evidence submitted, the disputed domain names are being used in connection with webpages that reproduce the Complainant’s services and trademarks, as well as the Complainant’s corporate information, purporting therefore to be operated by the Complainant, what clearly does not characterize a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy.

In that sense, and also according to the evidence submitted, there is no evidence that the Respondents have been commonly known by the disputed domain names, and furthermore, the Complainant indeed states that it has not granted the Respondents permission to display the Complainant’s trademarks in the websites associated with the disputed domain names, not being the Respondents licensees of the Complainant, nor having received any consent, express or implied to do so, nor there being any connection or affiliation between the Parties.

Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondents do not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Policy indicates in paragraph 4(b)(iv) that bad faith registration and use can be found in respect of a disputed domain name, where a 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 a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location.

In this case, both the registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith can be found pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) in view of the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademarks, as well as the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademarks and corporate information in the websites available at the disputed domain names.

Other factors corroborate a finding of bad faith:

a. the fact that the Respondents have engaged in what appears to be a pattern of bad faith conduct, having registered dozens of other domain names targeting the Complainant here and in a past UDRP case;

b. by having registered dozens of domain names, the Respondents engaged in a pattern of conduct preventing complainants from reflecting their marks in the disputed domain names;

c. the Respondents reproduced the Complainant’s well-known logo and services in the webpages to which Internet users are redirected, creating a likelihood of confusion or undue association in Internet users;

d. the choice in some cases to retain a privacy protection service to conceal their true identity; and

e. the absence of any response to the Complaint, failing thereby to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate good faith in the registration or use of the disputed domain names.

For the reasons above, the Respondents’ conduct has to be considered, in this Panel’s view, as bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

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 names, <188188600.net>, <188188300.net>, <188188400.net>, <188188100.net>, <188188800.net>, <188188200.net>, <188188500.net>, <188188700.net>, <188188900.net>, <188015.cc>, <188188100.com>, <188188200.com>, <188188300.com>, <188188400.com>, <188188500.com>, <188188600.com>, <188188700.com>, <188188800.com>, <188188900.com>, <188450.com>, <188player.com>, <188079.net>, <188450.net>, <188752.net>, <188804.net>, <w188.net>, <188003.cc>, <188013.cc>, <188079.cc>, <188348.cc>, <188450.cc>, <188804.cc>, <188ball.cc>, <188gg.cc>, <jbb002.cc>, <jbb72.cc>, <jbb222.info>, <jbb33.xyz>, and <jbb988.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

Wilson Pinheiro Jabur
Sole Panelist
Date: April 16, 2020