WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Realm Entertainment Limited v. Enes Usta

Case No. D2015-1253

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 Enes Usta of Istanbul, Turkey, self-represented.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <bets01.com>, bets1010.com>, <bets11.com>, <wwwbets10.com>, <www12bets10.com>, <1bet10.com>, <11best10.com>, <12best10.com> and <12bet10.com> are registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 20, 2015. On July 20, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 20, 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 August 12, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 1, 2015. On August 12, 2015, Respondent filed an email communication with the Center. The Response was filed with the Center on August 28, 2015.

In its Response, the Respondent proposed solution for a settlement between the two Parties. In this regard, the Respondent wrote in its Response: “Finally, for the solution of the case, I voluntary offer to shut down the websites (www.bets1010.com, wwwbets10.com, www12bets10.com and bets10.co) which contains ‘bets10’ in the domain name by taking the complaints into the consideration. However, I would like to hold the other domain names (www.12bet10.com, www.12best10.com, www.bets01.com, www.bets11.com, www.11best10.com, www.1bet10.com) as they do not violate any intellectual property law.” Following the same settlement proposal, on September 3, 2015, the Center sent an email communication to the Complainant and inquired whether the Complainant wishes to consider requesting a suspension of the proceedings to explore possible settlement between the Parties. In its email communication to the Center as of September 4, 2015, the Complainant informed the Center that they would not request for suspension of the proceedings since the Complainant is not interested in a settlement at this stage. Following the latter response from the Complainant, on September 4, 2015, the Respondent sent an additional email communication to the Center.

The Center appointed Mladen Vukmir as the sole panelist in this matter on September 7, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Panel has determined the following non-contested facts:

(i) the disputed domain name <bets1010.com> was created on October 3, 2014 and the disputed domain name <bets01.com> was created on February 8, 2015.

(ii) the disputed domain names <11best10.com>, <12bet10.com>, <1bet10.com>, <bets11.com> and <12best10.com> were created om April 10, 2015.

(iii) the disputed domain names <wwwbets10.com> and <www12bets10.com> were created on June 21, 2015.

(iv) the Respondent is the Registrant of the disputed domain names.

(v) the Complainant is the holder of following BETS10 trademark registrations:

(vi) the Complainant is the registrant of the domain name <bets10.com> which incorporates the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark and was first created on September 14, 2009. Under the same domain name <bets10.com>, the Complainant operates a website dedicated to different online gambling products and games. The Complainant’s website has received almost 50 million page views as of May 1, 2015.

(vii) disputed domain names <11best10.com>, <12best10.com>, <12bet10.com>, <bets01.com>, <bets11.com>, <wwwbets10.com> and <www12bets10.com> are redirected to a website in Turkish “www.tumcasino.net”. The disputed domain name <bets1010.com> is used for an advertisement website in Turkish language, while the disputed domain name <1bet10.com> is currently inactive.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant, essentially, asserts that:

(i) The Complainant is a limited liability company incorporated in Malta. The Complainant operates a well-known website “www.bets10.com” where a wide range of first-class online gambling products and games in a safe and user-friendly gaming environment is provided. The Complainant’s website has received almost 50 million page views as of May 1, 2015.

(ii) The Complainant has sent two cease and desist letters to the Respondent via email on June 29, 2015 and July 10, 2015.

(iii) The Respondent previously worked as an affiliate for the Complainant. When the Complainant discovered that the Respondent redirected traffic to competitors, the cooperation was terminated.

(iv) The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark, because some of the disputed domain names contain the same BETS10 trademark in its entirety, while others contain variation of said trademark of the Complainant, with additions of “www” or different spelling of the word “bets”. The additions of “www”, different numbers or different spellings of the word “bets” are not enough to distinguish the disputed domain names form the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark. The addition of gTLD suffixes (e.g. “.com”) is irrelevant for the assessment of confusing similarity.

(v) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, because the Respondent does not have any rights to the trademark BETS10, nor is the Respondent the licensee of the Complainant. The Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission to register the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark as domain names. The Respondent does not own any trademark or company name consisting of the term “bets10”. The disputed domain names <11best10.com>, <12best10.com>, <12bet10.com>, <bets01.com>, <bets11.com>, <wwwbets10.com> and <www12bets10.com> are redirected to a website “www.tumcasino.net”, which is a Turkish online casino website offering the same kind of services as the Complainant. The disputed domain name <1bet10.com> is currently inactive. The disputed domain name <bets1010.com> is used for linked advertisement and information in Turkish. The Complainant’s BEST10 trademark is frequently used on the website available under the latter domain name. Since the Complainant has the exclusive rights in BETS10 trademark, this strongly suggests that the disputed domain name <bets1010.com> was registered with the same trademark in mind and to commercially profit from misleading consumers searching for information about the Complainant’s business. The Respondent is obviously taking advantage of the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark in order to disrupt the business of the Complainant and to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s good reputation. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names or that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the same.

(vi) The disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. It is obvious that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademarks and business when registering the disputed domain names, since the same trademarks were registered well before the Respondent became the owner of the disputed domain names, and the Respondent used to work as an affiliate for the Complainant. In addition, the Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain names to the Complainant for unrealistic sums. The fact that the Respondent owns several domain names containing the Complainant’s trademark further proves a pattern of fraud. The Respondent is trying to take advantage of the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark in order to draw traffic to other websites. Therefore, the disputed domain names were registered to commercially profit from the likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain names.

B. Respondent

The Respondent, in essence, states that:

(i) The Respondent suspected that the individual who contacted him on behalf of the Complainant and introduced itself as “Efe Toprak” before the Complaint was filed is not a real person and was not acting on behalf of the Complainant. Said individual did not introduce itself as an official and did not communicate with the Respondent in an official manner. Besides that, every time the Respondent contacted the same individual, the communication started all over again. For that reason, the Respondent suspected that this was not the Complainant who contacted him, but rather some other individuals who wanted to make inquire about the disputed domain names. For that reason, the Respondent did not correspond to such individual “Efe Toprak” with business attitude.

(ii) Subsequently, the Respondent was contacted by the Complainant’s representatives Dipcon AB, who requested him to transfer the disputed domain names to the Complainant without reasoning or finding a common ground to solve the problems. The Respondent offered to Dipcon AB to redirect disputed domain names to a blank page, however Dipcon AB ignored his proposal. The Respondent even made a search of Dipcon AB’s website, but could not find the Complainant among their clients. For that reason, the Respondent suspected that it was a fake message from the individual “Efe Toprak” and started ignoring further messages from Dipcon, AB.

(iii) The disputed domain names are not competitors with the Complainant’s website, since: (a) the disputed domain names are redirecting to an informative website “www.tumcasino.com” which provides information about gaming in Turkey and does not serve any online gaming tools or products; (b) the Complainant’s website is in five different languages, but “www.tumcasino” is just in Turkish; (c) The Complainant is a gaming company which cannot perform its activities in Turkey, because the Complainant’s online gaming business is banned in Turkey by the Turkish Ministry of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communication, while “www.tumcasino” is intended only to Turkish speaking users in Turkey.

(iv) The disputed domain names are not used in bad faith as the same are not redirecting to any fraudulent acts, such as downloading viruses, getting personal information or similar. Some of the disputed domain names redirect to the website “www.tumcasino.com” which is not the Complainant’s competitor, while most of them are blank or unused.

(v) The online gaming websites consisting of words of “bet” or “bets” and numbers are extremely common in online gaming industry (e.g. <bet911.com>, <bet33.com>, <10bet.com> etc.). Besides that, many people are familiar with the word “bet” and use the same with the search engines to find online gaming addresses or to get information about online gaming. Hence, the Respondent registered several domain names containing word “bet” and different numbers such as <hotbet24.com>.

(vi) The Respondent has acquired the disputed domain names as an investment for prospective usage without the intention of selling the same at the time. The Respondent owns many other domain names besides the disputed domain names, and advertises those that are for sale on domain name marketplace SEDO. However, the Respondent has never put any of the disputed domain names for sale with SEDO. The Respondent does not accept the Complainant’s assertions of requesting unrealistic sums for the disputed domain names since he wrote the corresponding amounts in his communication with the Complainants representatives Dipcon, AB only to show that the same are not for sale in casual mode.

At the end of the Response, the Respondent made the settlement proposal, which was rejected by the Complainant, as it is described earlier under Section 3 of this Decision. Following the rejection of the settlement proposal, the Respondent sent an additional email communication to the Center on September 4, 2015. In the latter email communication, the Respondent expresses its doubts about the intentions of the Complainant and/or their representative, Dipcon AB. The Respondent states that he believes that the only purpose of filing the Complaint is to “claim” his domain names and that Dipcon, AB does not work for the Complainant, but rather for the Complainant’s competitors “Betsson”.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel now proceeds to consider this matter on the merits in light of the Complaint, the Response, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules and other applicable legal authority pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove, with respect to the disputed domain names, each of the following:

(i) the domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and

(iii) the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Primarily, the Panel emphasizes that under general consensus view, the mere fact of ownership of a registered trademark by the complainant is generally sufficient to satisfy the threshold requirement of having trademark rights (see paragraph 1.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDPR Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)).

The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to show that it is the owner of two BETS10 Community Trademarks.

Moreover, it is well established that the threshold test for confusing similarity under the UDRP involves a comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name. In order to satisfy this test, the relevant trademark would generally need to be recognizable as such within the disputed domain name, with the addition of common, dictionary, generic, descriptive, geographical or negative terms typically being disregarded as insufficient to prevent threshold Internet user confusion. Application of the confusing similarity test under the UDRP typically involves a straightforward visual or aural comparison of the trademark with the alphanumeric string in the domain name (see paragraphs 1.2 and 1.9 of WIPO Overview 2.0).

In addition, a domain name, which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally (so called typo-squatting), will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name (see paragraph 1.10 of WIPO Overview 2.0).

After performing the straightforward visual and aural comparison, it is evident to this Panel that the disputed domain names <bets1010.com>, <wwwbets10.com> and <www12bets10.com> incorporate the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark in its entirety, and that the same trademark is clearly recognizable as such within the disputed domain names. Adding the number 10 in the disputed domain name <bets1010.com> and the number 12 in the disputed domain <www12bets10.com> does very little to distinguish these domain names from the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark. In this Panel’s view, these numbers are insufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Complainant’s BEST10 trademark and the latter two domain names. The same refers to the World Wide Web prefix “www” in the disputed domain names <www12bets10.com> and <wwwbets10.com>.

What is more, this Panel holds that number 10 in the disputed domain name <bets1010.com> can also be considered as an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark. Equally, inclusion of the World Wide Web prefix “www” in the disputed domain name <wwwbets10.com>. In this Panel’s view, it is reasonable to expect that Internet users searching information about the Complainant would accidentally type the additional number 10 at the end of the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark, or that they would omit or overlook the missing “.” in the disputed domain name <wwwbets10.com>. Especially, since the “www” prefix is the expected part of any website address. These circumstances reinforce the possibility of confusion on the part of Internet users with respect to the latter two disputed domain names.

Panels in a number of earlier UDRP cases have considered that domain names consisting of the World Wide Web prefix “www” or generic symbols (numbers) affixed to a trademark are confusingly similar to such trademark (see e.g. CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Elbridge Gagne, WIPO Case No. D2003-0273 (<wwwamctv.com>); CITGO Petroleum Corporation v. Horace A. "Woofer" Smith, WIPO Case No. D2003-0054 (<wwwcitgo.com>); EasyGroup IP Licensing Limited v. Amjad Kausar, WIPO Case No. D2003-0012 (<wwweasyjet.com>); General Electric Company v. Fisher Zvieli, a/k/a Zvieli Fisher, WIPO Case No. D2000-0377 (<wwwge.com>); Cellular One Group v. Digital Communications, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0189 (<digital1.org>); Intera N.V. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Sheref Selcuk, WIPO Case No. D2012-2069 (<betboo-100.com>); Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. 007 Promotions, WIPO Case No. D2009-1523 (<0scars100.com> inter alia), etc.).

With respect to the disputed domain names <bets01.com> and <bets11.com>, the same may, in this Panel’s opinion, be considered as an obvious or common misspelling of the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark, which misspelled trademark remains the only component of the respective domain names. It is highly probable for Internet users searching information about the Complainant and its business to accidentally type the number 01 or 11 instead of number 10 which represents the end part of the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark. Therefore, this Panel holds that the same two disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark.

Regarding the remaining disputed domain names <1bet10.com>, <11best10.com>, <12best10.com> and <12bet10.com>, according to this Panel’s findings, the same consist of an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s subject trademark, i.e. “bet10” and “best10”, paired with numbers 1, 11 or 12 at the beginning of the respective disputed domain name. This Panel holds that adding of the generic symbols (numbers) at the beginning of these four disputed domain names to an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, which remains the principal element of the same domain names, is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity.

Panels in previous UDRP cases have found domain names, which represent obvious or common misspelling of a trademark, as well as the misspellings of the trademark in combination with a generic term or symbol to be confusingly similar to such trademark (see e.g. Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2002-0775 (<wochovia.com> inter alia); Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings, WIPO Case No. D2004-0971 (<fuijifilm.com>); Humana Inc. v. Cayman Trademark Trust, WIPO Case No. D2006-0073 (<humanna.com>); Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, WIPO Case No. D2006-1043 (<edmundss.com>); Express Scripts, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domaindeals, Domain Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2008-1302 (<expresscripts.com>) etc.).

In relation to the applicable gTLD “.com” suffix in all disputed domain names, it is a consensus view that it is usually disregarded under the confusing similarity test (see paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0).

For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement set forth in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, i.e. has proven that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out a number of circumstances which, without limitation, may be effective for a respondent to demonstrate that it has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Those circumstances are:

“(i) Before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, use by [the respondent] of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) Where [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii) Where [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.”

The consensus view of UDRP panels on the onus of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, is summarized in paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0, whereby: “[…] a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.”.

In the subject matter case, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain names. According to the Panel’s findings, the Respondent failed to produce appropriate allegations and evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

Namely, the Complainant has established that it is the owner of two BETS10 Community Trademarks, as well as that it had used the same BETS10 trademark as part of its domain name <bets10.com> and the website the Complainant operates under the latter domain name. This Panel holds that the Complainant has presented enough evidence that its BETS10 trademark is renown within the relevant Internet gaming and gambling circles (the Complainant’s website has received almost 50 million page views as of May 1, 2015).

There is no evidence, disclosed to the Panel nor otherwise apparent from the records, that the Complainant has ever licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark, or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the same trademark.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names or has been using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers.

According to his own words, the Respondent operates a website in Turkish language available at “www.tumcasino.net” which provides information about online gaming and gambling. Therefore, the Respondent is obviously operating its business under the names “Tüm Casino” or “Tüm”. The Respondent did not present any evidence to show that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain names or the name BETS10.

The majority of the disputed domain names are redirected to the Respondent’s website “www.tumcasino.net”. Having in mind the renown of the Complainant’s trademark BETS10 within the relevant Internet community, in this Panel’s opinion it can be safely concluded that the Respondent deliberately chose to include the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain names, in order to trade on the renown of the Complainant’s trademark and to achieve commercial gain by misleadingly diverting consumers and/or to disrupt the business of the Complainant. Such use cannot be considered as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use nor does it constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services. This is in line with views taken by panels in earlier UDRP cases (see e.g. Google, Inc. v. Robert Takovich, WIPO Case No. DMX2012-0006; Société Peclers Paris v. PECLERS.COM c/o Whois Identity Shield / Société Peclers Paris Domain Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2007-0630; America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu, WIPO Case No. D2000-1374; Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited v. Texas International Property Associates NA NA, WIPO Case No. D2007-1407; Get Away Today.Com Inc. v. Warren Gilbert; WIPO Case No. DCO2010-0021; Overstock.com, Inc. v. Metro Media, WIPO Case No. DME2009-0001.

In this Panel’s view, the Respondent’s claims that the Respondent’s website “www.tumcasino.net” is not a direct competitor of the Complainant’s business, is of no relevance. The presence of the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark in the disputed domain names certainly bears weight as a signal to the potential visitors and the disputed domain names clearly benefit from the same. The latter in this Panel’s view equally refers to the disputed domain names <11best10.com>, <12best10.com>, <12bet10.com>, <bets01.com>, <bets11.com>, <wwwbets10.com> and <www12bets10.com> which are redirected to the Respondent’s website “www.tumcasino.net”, the disputed domain name <bets1010.com> which is used for advertisement website in Turkish language, as well as the disputed domain name <1bet10.com> which is currently inactive.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the requirements set forth in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been fulfilled by the Complainant’s making the prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and by the Respondent’s failing to produce any arguments or evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

For the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the holder has registered or has 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 the holder’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the holder has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the holder has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the holder has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the holder has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the holder’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the holder’s website or location or of a product or service on the holder’s website or location.

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s arguments substantiated by evidence (in the first place email correspondence between the Complainant, the Complainant’s representative Dipcon, AB and the Respondent) that, the Respondent, as a former affiliate of the Complainant, was well aware of the Complainant, the Complainant’s business and trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. The Respondent did not deny being a former affiliate of the Complainant or being aware of the Complainant or its BETS10 trademarks. Panels in earlier UDRP cases have found bad faith registration based in part on proof that the respondent "knew or should have known" about the existence of the complainant's trademark (see paragraph 3.4 of WIPO Overview 2.0).

Furthermore, the Respondent has registered nine domain names incorporating the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark, obvious misspellings of said trademark or pairing the same with generic symbols (numbers). In this Panel’s opinion, this fact shows that the Respondent’s has engaged in a pattern of conduct with the purpose of preventing the Complainant from reflecting its BETS10 trademark in a corresponding domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds the provisions of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy to be applicable in this case. In a number of earlier UDRP cases, panels have found bad faith registration on the side of the respondent who has registered multiple domain names, which are similar to the respective trademarks (see paragraph 3.3 of WIPO Overview 2.0).

Moreover, and as already discussed above, the majority of the disputed domain names are redirected to the Respondent’s website “www.tumcasino.net”, while the disputed domain name <bets1010.com> is used for an advertisement website in Turkish language which frequently refers to the Complainant’s BETS10 trademark (only the disputed domain name <1bet10.com> is currently inactive). Having in mind the renown of the Complainant and its trademarks within the online gambling and gaming community, it is obvious to this Panel that by using the disputed domain names in such manner, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website, for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the same website and/or to disrupt the business of the Complainant. As stated earlier, the presence of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain names certainly bears weight as a signal to the potential visitors and the disputed domain name clearly benefits from the same.

For that reason, the Panel finds that if the Respondent is benefitting financially then the provisions of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are also applicable in this case, since that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names interferes with the Complainant’s business and Internet users might be misled about the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website to which the disputed domain name is redirected. See, e.g., the following decisions issued by panels in some of earlier UDRP proceedings:

(i) Sanofi v. PrivacyProtect.org / ICS Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-1293 (<sanofiadventis.com>): “previous UDRP decisions have found bad faith at the time of registration to exist where a domain name is so obviously connected with such a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection with the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte, WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC, WIPO Case No. D2006-0303)”;

(ii) PepsiCo, Inc. v Ali Khan, WIPO Case No. D2004-0292 (<pepsistrawberry.com>): “The fact that the Respondent elected to register a domain name substantially comprising the ‘PEPSI’ trademark indicates that it was a deliberate act to mislead consumers into believing there was a connection with the Complainant.”

If the Respondent is not benefitting financially then the Panel finds that the Respondent is nevertheless disrupting the Complainant’s business. This applies in particular to the domain name <1bet10.com> which is inactive.

Finally, from the WhoIs records for the disputed domain names submitted by the Complainant, it arises that the Respondent has provided false contact information for the disputed domain names <11best10.com>, <12best10.com>, <12bet10.com>, <1bet10.com>, <bets01.com>, <bets1010.com> and <bets11.com> which is in collision to the provisions of the registration agreement for the same domain names. Namely, for the Registrant/Admin street the Respondent provided the name of the company and the neighbourhood in Malta (“TUM Ltd Malta Sliema – Malta”), while for the Registrant/Admin City the Respondent entered “Istanbul” which is in Turkey. The Panel suspects that the postcode for Istanbul as provided by the Respondent (“55555”) is also incorrect. This fact reinforces the Panel’s findings that the Respondent acted in bad faith. Panels in earlier UDRP cases have also found bad faith based in one part on providing of false contact information by the respondent (see e.g. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; and Clerical Medical Investment Group Limited v. Clericalmedical.com (Clerical & Medical Services Agency), WIPO Case No. D2000-1228).

Given the above, the Panel determines that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith and that the Complainant fulfilled the third element under paragraph 4(a) 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 <bets01.com>, <bets1010.com>, <bets11.com>, <wwwbets10.com>, <www12bets10.com>, <1bet10.com>, <11best10.com>, <12best10.com> and <12bet10.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mladen Vukmir
Sole Panelist
Date: September 21, 2015