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 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

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

beIN Media Group L.L.C v. Abdi Kamel

Case No. D2020-1076

1. The Parties

The Complainant is beIN Media Group L.L.C, Qatar, represented by Gevers & Ores, France.

The Respondent is Abdi Kamel, Algeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bein247.com> (the “Domain Name”) 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 April 30, 2020. On May 1, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 1, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification 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 May 1 and 4, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed amended Complaints on May 3 and 4, 2020 respectively.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with amended Complaints 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 May 20, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 9, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 10, 2020.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on June 17, 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 is a media group established in Qatar that broadcasts and streams sporting events and entertainment. The Complainant distributes and produces entertainment, live sport and major international events across five continents, 43 countries and in seven different languages spanning Europe, North America, Asia, Australia, the Middle East and North Africa.

The Complainant is the holder of numerous trademarks including the term “bein” in numerous jurisdictions, e.g.,Algerian trademark registration no. 1/100697 BEIN filed on October 23, 2014 and registered on January 3, 2018, United States of America trademark registration no. 5,273,645 BEIN SPORTS filed on January 23, 2015 and registered on August 29, 2017, and European Union trademark registration no. 010617082 BEIN SPORT filed on February 6, 2012 and registered on May 24, 2013. The Complainant holds the trade name beIN Media Group L.L.C, from which it has derived its trademark BEIN. The Complainant owns a large number of domain name registrations with the term “bein” included.

The Domain Name was registered on August 5, 2019. According to the Registrar, the Domain Name registration expires on August 5, 2020.

At the time of filing the Complaint, the Domain Name was used for a webpage using the Complainant’s BEIN SPORTS trademark and purportedly offering online access to watch various “beIN SPORTS” HD channels. At the time of drafting the decision, the Domain Name directed to an error website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant has documented trademark registrations. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as the Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s trademark, combined with an arbitrary combination of numbers. Alternatively, the numbers “247” could be a reference to the fact that the programs of the Complainant are broadcasted 24/7 (24 hours a day and 7 days a week – without interruption).

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, has not received any license and has never been permitted to register or use the Complainant’s trademarks, or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent does not own any valid trademark or trade name rights “Bein”. The use of the Domain Name cannot be considered bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent uses the same logo on the website attached to the Domain Name as the one actually used by the Complainant’s genuine website. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has used the Domain Name to identify itself as the Complainant.

Finally, the Complainant submits that there is no plausible explanation why the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademarks. Moreover, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith, since the Respondent is creating a confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent tries to deceive customers through the use of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant believes the Respondent’s use of an anonymization service is further evidence of bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established trademark rights. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark BEIN in its entirety, with the addition of the numbers “247”. This mere addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent. The Domain Name directed to a website displaying the Complainant’s BEIN SPORTS trademark and purportedly offering online access to watch various “beIN SPORTS” HD channels without accurately and prominently disclosing the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant, which appears to have shown an attempt from the Respondent to identify itself as the Complainant. Such use is not bona fide nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use. In addition, there is no evidence on record suggesting the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Based on the evidence, in particular, the use of the Domain Name, it is likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant’s trademark rights predate the Domain Name registration. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith, since the Respondent attempted to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademarks in order to deceive customers. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name also disrupts the Complainant’s business.

The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the 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 Domain Name <bein247.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: June 19, 2020

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/