Propiedad intelectual Formación en PI Divulgación de la PI La PI para... La PI y… La PI en… Información sobre patentes y tecnología Información sobre marcas Información sobre diseños industriales Información sobre las indicaciones geográficas Información sobre las variedades vegetales (UPOV) Leyes, tratados y sentencias de PI Recursos de PI Informes sobre PI Protección por patente Protección de las marcas Protección de diseños industriales Protección de las indicaciones geográficas Protección de las variedades vegetales (UPOV) Solución de controversias en materia de PI Soluciones operativas para las oficinas de PI Pagar por servicios de PI Negociación y toma de decisiones Cooperación para el desarrollo Apoyo a la innovación Colaboraciones público-privadas La Organización Trabajar con la OMPI Rendición de cuentas Patentes Marcas Diseños industriales Indicaciones geográficas Derecho de autor Secretos comerciales Academia de la OMPI Talleres y seminarios Día Mundial de la PI Revista de la OMPI Sensibilización Casos prácticos y casos de éxito Novedades sobre la PI Premios de la OMPI Empresas Universidades Pueblos indígenas Judicatura Recursos genéticos, conocimientos tradicionales y expresiones culturales tradicionales Economía Igualdad de género Salud mundial Cambio climático Política de competencia Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible Observancia de los derechos Tecnologías de vanguardia Aplicaciones móviles Deportes Turismo PATENTSCOPE Análisis de patentes Clasificación Internacional de Patentes ARDI - Investigación para la innovación ASPI - Información especializada sobre patentes Base Mundial de Datos sobre Marcas Madrid Monitor Base de datos Artículo 6ter Express Clasificación de Niza Clasificación de Viena Base Mundial de Datos sobre Dibujos y Modelos Boletín de Dibujos y Modelos Internacionales Base de datos Hague Express Clasificación de Locarno Base de datos Lisbon Express Base Mundial de Datos sobre Marcas para indicaciones geográficas Base de datos de variedades vegetales PLUTO Base de datos GENIE Tratados administrados por la OMPI WIPO Lex: leyes, tratados y sentencias de PI Normas técnicas de la OMPI Estadísticas de PI WIPO Pearl (terminología) Publicaciones de la OMPI Perfiles nacionales sobre PI Centro de Conocimiento de la OMPI Informes de la OMPI sobre tendencias tecnológicas Índice Mundial de Innovación Informe mundial sobre la propiedad intelectual PCT - El sistema internacional de patentes ePCT Budapest - El Sistema internacional de depósito de microorganismos Madrid - El sistema internacional de marcas eMadrid Artículo 6ter (escudos de armas, banderas, emblemas de Estado) La Haya - Sistema internacional de diseños eHague Lisboa - Sistema internacional de indicaciones geográficas eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediación Arbitraje Determinación de expertos Disputas sobre nombres de dominio Acceso centralizado a la búsqueda y el examen (CASE) Servicio de acceso digital (DAS) WIPO Pay Cuenta corriente en la OMPI Asambleas de la OMPI Comités permanentes Calendario de reuniones Documentos oficiales de la OMPI Agenda para el Desarrollo Asistencia técnica Instituciones de formación en PI Apoyo para COVID-19 Estrategias nacionales de PI Asesoramiento sobre políticas y legislación Centro de cooperación Centros de apoyo a la tecnología y la innovación (CATI) Transferencia de tecnología Programa de Asistencia a los Inventores (PAI) WIPO GREEN PAT-INFORMED de la OMPI Consorcio de Libros Accesibles Consorcio de la OMPI para los Creadores WIPO ALERT Estados miembros Observadores Director general Actividades por unidad Oficinas en el exterior Ofertas de empleo Adquisiciones Resultados y presupuesto Información financiera Supervisión

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

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