WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Realm Entertainment Limited v. Cenk Demir

Case No. D2018-0559

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Realm Entertainment Limited of Ta' Xbiex, Malta, represented by Ports Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Cenk Demir of Istanbul, Turkey, self-represented.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <bets10-giris.info>, is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 14, 2018. On March 14, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 15, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 19, 2018 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 March 19, 2018.¹

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 March 22, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 11, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any formal response but submitted an email communication on March 19, 2018. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed to the Panel appointment on April 12, 2018.

The Center appointed David Stone as the sole panelist in this matter on April 19, 2018. 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 limited liability company incorporated in Malta. Since 2011 the Complainant has run the games website "www.bets10.com" under the name "Bets10", offering a wide range of online gambling products and games. There are approximately 18 million active "Bets10" poker players, making it one of the largest poker networks in the world.

The Complainant is the registered owner of two European Union trade marks (the "BETS10 Marks"):

- BETS10: registration number 009941139, registered on September 14, 2011 in Nice classes 36, 38 and 41; and

- BETS10 (device): registration number 012403713, registered on May 5, 2014 in Nice classes 36, 38 and 41.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 5, 2017 and it resolves to a website in Turkish offering competing services.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered rights. The only difference between the BETS10 Marks and the disputed domain name is the addition of the word "giris", which is Turkish for "login" and which is intended to give consumers searching for the Complainant's trademark the impression that they are entering a login site owned by the Complainant, and the addition of the Top-Level Domain ".info". Neither addition is relevant to the assessment of confusing similarity, and the incorporation of "bets10" in its entirety therefore renders the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the BETS10 Marks.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights in the BETS10 Marks, and notes that the Respondent has no licence or other permission to use them and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves features both of the BETS10 Marks, provides information on betting and gambling, and includes a link that redirects the user to the website of one of the Complainant's competitors. The Complainant therefore maintains that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to profit from misleading consumers searching for information about the Complainant's business and with the intention of diverting such consumers to the websites of competing businesses.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In this connection the Complainant reiterates the incorporation of "bets10" in its entirety in the disputed domain name, the associated website's use of the BETS10 Marks, and the fact that the website content relates to gambling and contains a link to a competitor's website. The BETS10 Marks were registered several years before the disputed domain name and their use by the Respondent, in particular on a website relating to gambling, shows that the Respondent was aware of both the marks and the Complainant's business. This indicates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to sell it to the Complainant, to prevent the Complainant from registering the disputed domain name, or, relying on the confusing similarity between the BETS10 Marks and the disputed domain name, to disrupt or damage the Complainant's business by misleading Internet users searching for information on the Complainant. The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent on February 19, 2018 but did not receive a response.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions, other than to send an email noting his displeasure at the registrar's disclosure of his name and contact information.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets out the three requirements that the Complainant must prove in order to succeed:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

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

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The presence of the generic Top-Level Domain ".info" may be disregarded in determining the degree of similarity between a trade or service mark and a domain name. See EPSON Europe BV for and on behalf of Seiko EPSON Corporation v. Andrey Ushakov, WIPO Case No. D2014-0388. Furthermore, where the relevant trade mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The nature of such additional terms may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"). Excepting the terms ".info" and "giris" and an irrelevant hyphen, the disputed domain name is identical to the BETS10 Marks, and the Panel therefore finds that the condition in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the criteria that determine whether a domain name registrant has rights or legitimate interests in a 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) as an individual, business or other organisation, the Respondent 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 has been making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

The Complainant's contentions and the evidence provided on the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves make out a prima facie case that the Respondent is using the BETS10 Marks, both in the disputed domain name and on the associated website, to offer information on services similar to those provided by the Complainant and to link to the website of one of the Complainant's competitors. Without authorisation to use the BETS10 Marks, this can be considered neither legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name nor a bona fide offering of services. Furthermore, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. In failing to respond to the Complainant's contentions, the Respondent has failed to rebut this prima facie case. See Vorwerk International AG v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Sonja Kaiserauer / Martin Mueller / Andrea Goldberg, WIPO Case No. D2016-0524. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the condition in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out the non-exhaustive criteria for bad faith. Generally, for the purposes of the Policy, bad faith constitutes the intention to register and use a domain name in order to:

(i) sell, rent or transfer the domain name to the trade mark owner (or a competitor thereof) for a profit;

(ii) prevent the trade mark owner from registering its trade mark in a domain name;

(iii) disrupt the business of a competitor; or

(iv) divert Internet traffic for commercial gain.

The unauthorized use of the BETS10 Marks in association with online gambling and the link to the website of a competitor is clearly designed to disrupt the Complainant's business and to mislead and divert Internet users for the commercial gain of, if not the Respondent, then a third party. Moreover, in the context of services or products such as online gambling, whose nature is such that a membership account may be required for access, the presence in the disputed domain name of the generic word "giris", meaning "login", increases rather than decreases the likelihood of confusion. By the above criteria, this demonstrates registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel therefore concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the condition in paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 name, <bets10-giris.info>, be transferred to the Complainant.

David Stone
Sole Panelist
Date: May 5, 2018

¹ The Panel notes that the Complaint was originally filed against "Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC". The amended Complaint replaced the privacy service with the Registrar-confirmed registrant, i.e. Cenk Demir.