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 eMadrid Reference 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


SBTech (Global) Limited v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / SBTech Trading Global

Case No. D2016-2540

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SBTech (Global) Limited of Gibraltar, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("Gibraltar"), represented by Wiggin LLP, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, United States of America ("United States") / SBTech Trading Global of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom").

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sbtechtrading.com> (the "Domain Name") is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 15, 2016. On December 15, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 15, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 4, 2017 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 9, 2017.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 10, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 30, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 31, 2017.

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on February 7, 2017. 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 is a company registered in Gibraltar but domiciled in the Isle of Man. It has been at the forefront of the betting industry since 2007. It is a leading global provider of interactive sports betting and "iGaming" platforms and management services to top gaming operators, established bookmakers and land-based networks in regulated and traditional markets around the world. Its website at "www.sbtech.com" is a key medium through which it sells its services to other businesses.

The Complainant has a wide portfolio of global partners and offices around the world, including in Gibraltar, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Israel and Malta. Its reputation has been consolidated by its success in winning awards for its software, including three in 2016 alone. The Complainant's trading name is "SBTech". Its turnkey egambling platform serves millions of users each year.

The Complainant is the proprietor of European Union Trade Mark number 13917232 for SBTECH, registered on January 20, 2016.

The Domain Name was registered on April 21, 2016. The Registrant Name associated with the Registrant Organization in the WhoIs record of the Domain Name is stated to be "Tom Light". The Complainant's Vice President of Business Development is also called Tom Light. At the time of preparation of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a website at "www.sbtechtrading.com" promoting the Respondent's "live betting and trading franchise service". After the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, the Contact Us page of the website directed all correspondence to Stephen Burrell Trading Echelon (Sports Betting & Trading). The Domain Name resolves now to a holding page.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its SBTECH trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or 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 Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has uncontested rights in the trademark SBTECH, both by virtue of its trademark registration and as a result of its goodwill and reputation acquired through use of the SBTech name over several years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com", the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Complainant's mark together with the word "trading". In the Panel's view, the addition of the dictionary word "trading" does not detract from the confusing similarity with the Complainant's mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. In an email to the Complainant, the Respondent claimed that the Domain Name derives from a combination of the initials of a Mr. Stephen Burrell ("SB"), the initial "T" from the word "Trading" and the first three letters of the word "Echelon", all from the correspondence name given at one time on the Contact Us page of the Respondent's website, "Stephen Burrell Trading Echelon (Sports Betting & Trading)". The Panel considers that this is intrinsically unlikely, particularly bearing in mind that the name of the Registrant Organization of the Domain Name is "SBTech Trading Global", and notes that the Respondent only purported to adopt the name "Stephen Burrell Trading Echelon (Sports Betting & Trading)" after the Complainant had sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent.

The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint and has accordingly failed to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant.

Furthermore, given the nature of the services offered by the Respondent on its website and the widespread reputation of the Complainant, the Panel considers it most likely that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant and of its rights in the SBTECH mark when it registered the Domain Name.

In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

As indicated above, the Panel considers it most likely that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the SBTECH mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The adoption of a third party's well-known name and mark for a domain name providing services associated and in competition with the activities of that third party amounts in the Panel's view to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of paragraph 4 of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

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 Domain Name <sbtechtrading.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: February 17, 2017