Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may indicate that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith, as follows:
"(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or acquired a disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to the complainant or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) [the respondent has] registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the complainant from reflecting the complainant’s trade mark or service mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location".
The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name was both registered and is being used in bad faith.
As regards to bad faith registration, the evidence shows that many of the Complainant's trade marks were registered long before the registration of the Domain Name. In addition, the Complainant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of this Panel that the Complainant's trade marks are well-known, as confirmed by previous UDRP decisions and a Danish Supreme Court decision produced by the Complainant. Further, the fact that the Respondent registered the Domain Name on 26 January 2012, shortly after the partial gaming liberalization of the Complainant's monopoly in Denmark earlier that same month, suggests that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its rights at the time of registration of the Domain Name and thus deliberately chose to register the Domain Name to obtain some sort of financial gain. The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith by the Respondent.
As far as bad faith use of the Domain Name is concerned, the Panel accepts the Complainant's contention that by using the Domain Name to point to a parking website containing commercial links, the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source or sponsorship of the website, within the meaning of Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. In addition, the fact that the Domain Name is offered for sale on the parking page to which the Domain Name is pointing is a further indication of the Respondent's bad faith.
Finally, whilst the use of a privacy protection service is not by itself an indication of bad faith, the Panel finds that in this case, particularly in the context of a parking website, the use of a privacy protection service to conceal the Respondent's identity is an additional element supporting a finding of bad faith.
The Complainant has therefore demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).
|