WIPO Administration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Provent Holdings Ltd. and Harmony Park International Inc. v. www.juming.com, lirong shi and Hu Weisheng
Case No. D2015-1302
1. The Parties
The Complainants are Provent Holdings Ltd. of Tortola, British Virgin Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Harmony Park International Inc. of Belize City, Belize, represented by Tay Leng Kian, Malaysia.
The Respondents are www.juming.com, lirong shi of Fujian, China and Hu Weisheng of Anhui, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <mm887.com> is registered with eNom. The disputed domain name <m88y.com> is registered with Domainsofcourse.com LLC (the "Registrars").
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 28, 2015. On July 28, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 28, 2015, the Registrar eNom transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent Hu Weisheng is listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name <mm887.com> and providing the contact details. On July 30, 2015, the Registrar Domainsofcourse.com LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent www.juming.com, lirong shi is listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name <m88y.com> 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on August 5, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 25, 2015. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents' default on August 26, 2015.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 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 Complainants (henceforth, the "Complainant") are companies incorporated in British Virgin Islands and Belize, respectively, and the owner and licensee of registrations for the trade marks M88, M88.com and M Device & M88.com (the "Trade Mark(s)") in numerous jurisdictions worldwide, the earliest dating from August 2012. The Complainant is also the owner and licensee of the composite Chinese/English language trade marks 明陞M88.com and M Device 明陞M88.com.
The Respondents (henceforth, the "Respondent(s)") are apparently individuals resident in China.
C. The Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain names <mm887.com> and <m88y.com> were registered on May 19, 2014 and June 20, 2015, respectively.
D. The Website at the Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain names are resolved to the same Chinese language website providing online gambling services (the "Website").
5. Parties' Contentions
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar or identical to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Consolidation of Respondents
Consolidation of multiple respondents may be appropriate, under paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules, even where differently named domain name registrants are involved, where the particular circumstances of a given case indicate that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names.
The Complainant contends:
1. Both of the disputed domain names resolve to the same IP Address;
2. The content of the Websites is identical;
3. Both of the Respondents are based in China; and
4. The Complainants would incur more costs in filing two separate complaints.
The Respondent did not file a Response.
In all the circumstances, the Panel concludes sufficient evidence has been adduced to enable the conclusion to be drawn that common control is being exercised over the disputed domain names.
In all the circumstances, the Panel determines, under paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, that consolidation of the Respondents is procedurally efficient and equitable to all the parties, is consistent with the Policy and Rules, and comports with prior relevant UDRP decisions in respect of this issue.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Marks acquired through use and registration.
This is a clear case of typosquatting – the addition of the number "7" in the <mm887.com> disputed domain name, and the addition of the letter "y" in the <m88y.com> disputed domain name, does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Trade Marks in any significant way.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent's use 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) 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) 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.
There is no evidence that the Complainant has authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain names or to use the Trade Marks. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain names or that the disputed domain names have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain names have been used in respect of the Website, which provides online gambling services in direct competition with those provided by the Complainant, and which features prominently the Complainant's M Device and 明陞marks without the Complainant's authorisation.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In light of the evidence of the Respondent's use of the Website in the manner described above, the Panel finds the requisite element of bad faith has been satisfied, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
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 <mm887.com> and <m88y.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Dated: September 15, 2015