À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

BML Group Ltd. v Privacydotlink Customer 2558770 / ZHENHUA BIN

Case No. D2017-1862

1. The Parties

The Complainant is BML Group Ltd of Ta Xbiex, Malta, represented by Brimondo AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Privacydotlink Customer 2558770 of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland / ZHENHUA BIN of Guangzhou, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <betsae.com> is registered with Uniregistrar Corp (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 25, 2017. On September 25, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 27, 2017, 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 September 29, 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 October 2, 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 October 3, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 23, 2017. Several email communications from a third party (Mybet Holding SE), which are referred to below, were received by the Center on October 18, 23 and 24, 2017 and November 7, 2017. The Center notified the Parties of the commencement of the panel appointment process on November 13, 2017.

No Response has been filed by or on behalf of the Respondent.

The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on November 16, 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, BML Group Ltd., is a Maltese company with company registration number C-34836 and is a well-known digital gaming company and leading provider in iGaming services such as poker, sports betting, bingo, scratch tickets and casino games worldwide. It is part of one of the largest iGaming groups which is owned by Swedish company Betsson AB that has been providing gaming entertainment and casino games for more than 50 years. The Complainant is listed on the Nasdaq Stockholm Large Cap List. It owns more than 20 online gaming brands including Bestsafe, Betsson, Casino Euro, Kroon Casino, Oranje Casino, Star Casino, and Nordicbet. All of these names are registered trademarks in many different jurisdictions around the world and provide to the Complainant more than 2.5 million registered users around the world. Betsafe.com is the leading brand and platform which makes the Complainant one of the leading suppliers of online gaming worldwide with over 450,000 customers from over 100 different companies. It was launched in 2006 and is being used for online gambling services such as sports betting, poker, casino and more.

The mark BETSAFE is registered as a trademark in numerous jurisdictions around the world by the Complainant and SafePay which is also part of the Complainant, BML Group Ltd.

The Complainant is the registrant of <betsafe.com>, registered on March 21, 2002. It also owns several other domain names including <betsafe.us>, <betsafe.org>, <betsafe.uk>, <betsafe.es>, <betsafe.se>, <betsafe.mobi>.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations worldwide for BETSAFE mainly in classes 9, 28, 35, 38, 41, 42, and 43. A number of these are listed in the Complaint together with copies of certificates of registration including European Trademark Number 007214059 (registered on February 2, 2011), European Trademark Number 011385036 (registered on June 17, 2013), European Trademark Number 014872287 (registered on March 21, 2016), and European Trademark Number 008585648 (registered on May 3, 2010), and International Trademark (designated territory China) Number 1181594 (registered on June 17, 2013).

The disputed domain name <betsae.com> was registered by the Respondent on January 26, 2015. A screenshot of <betsae.com> redirected to <mybet.com> is exhibited at Annex 6 to the Complaint. Mybet.com is a commercial competitor of the Complainant and based on the record, appears to be a trading name of Mybet Holding SE.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits:

1.1 The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to BETSAFE in which the Complainant rights.

1.2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <betsae.com>. The Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with the Complainant nor has it been given permission to use the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name <betsae.com>.

1.3 The disputed domain name <betsae.com> was registered and is being used in bad faith. In particular the disputed domain name is redirecting users to the Complainant's competitor's website at the domain name <mybet.com> which indicates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with malicious intent towards the Complainant and that this is evidence of bad faith at registration.

B. Respondent

In the absence of a Response, there are no contentions from the Respondent.

The Panel has also seen correspondence from legal counsel for Mybet Holding SE.

In an email dated November 7, 2017, Mybet Holding SE provided evidence through its legal counsel that the disputed domain name is apparently registered by an individual in China, namely, the Respondent ZHENHUA BIN.

Mybet Holding SE indicated that it has no control over the disputed domain name.

The Panel is prepared to accept that Mybet Holding SE is not the owner of the disputed domain name.

6. Discussion and Findings

In the absence of a Response and evidence to the contrary, the Panel accepts the above evidence adduced by the Complainant as true and proceeds to determine the Complaint on the basis of the Complainant's evidence.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant relies upon its rights in the mark BETSAFE. The difference between the disputed domain name and the mark BETSAFE is the missing letter "f" in the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the missing letter "f" does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademarks and that it is an "insignificant change".

In the Panel's view, taking into account that the only difference between the disputed domain name and mark BETSAFE is the letter "f" it finds that the disputed domain name <betsae.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark BETSAFE.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no legitimate purpose in registering a domain name confusingly similar to the mark BETSAFE. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with the Complainant in any way and it has not been given the Complainant's consent to use the disputed domain name.

There is no evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the evidence is that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in order to redirect Internet users to the Complainant's competitor website at the domain name <mybet.com>.

The Panel, having considered the Complainant's evidence and in particular the fact the Respondent is not commonly known by the name "Betsae" or the disputed domain name finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <betsae.com>.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant adduces evidence that the disputed domain name is being used in order to redirect Internet traffic to competitors of the Complainant and that this is a clear indication that the registration was made with the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant.

The extracts from the websites exhibited at Annexes 9-13 to the Complaint show clear evidence of this. In particular, there is evidence that the disputed domain name is redirecting to the Complainant's competitor's website at the domain name <mybet.com>. Also at Annexes 10 and 11 to the Complaint are screen shots of the Internet archive/Way Back Machine which shows that in August 2015 the disputed domain name was redirecting to a Chinese betting website at the domain name <etare.com>. Also Annexes 12 and 13 to the Complaint, which are screen shots of the Internet archive/Way Back Machine, show that on October 2, 2016, the disputed domain name was redirected to a Chinese betting website at the domain name <falao.com>.

In the Panel's view, there is clear evidence of the Respondent using the disputed domain name to disrupt the business of the Complainant. It follows that there is evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel therefore finds for the Complainant in respect of this element.

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 <betsae.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Clive Duncan Thorne
Sole Panelist
November 28, 2017

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