FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
The Complainant, EMPHASIS SERVICES LIMITED, through its subsidiaries and licensees, operates websites offering online gaming and betting with licenses issued in the Philippines, Curacao, UK and the Isle of Man. The Complainant owns and operates several gaming sites under the brand “Dafa” (i.e.<dafabet.com> & <dafa888.com>).
The Complainant has, for 14 years, used the name “Dafa” in varying combinations to designate its online gaming and betting offerings.
The Complainant has registered its rights over the brand “Dafa” in Malaysia and Hong Kong and has likewise secured a CTM registration for the name and graphic representation (logo) for “Dafabet”.
“Dafabet” is a well-known mark through its various sponsorships of commercial clubs: a) Official Main Club Sponsor of Sunderland FC; b) Official Main Club Sponsor of Celtic FC; c) Official Main Club Sponsor of Burnley FC; d) Official International Betting Partner of Everton FC; e) Official Main Club Sponsor of Blackburn Rovers FC; f) Official Main Team Sponsor of Fnatic eSports; g) Official Betting Partner of Wales.
Dafabet was also named by eGaming Review as 23rd among the 40 most influential e-gaming operators in the world.
The domains involved in this complaint are identical and confusingly similar to the brands owned by the Complainant as they all use the prefix “dafa”, with a series of numbers and letters attached to the domain. Further, an examination of the content of all domains reveal that they are basically clones of the Complainant’s website and are illegally using the Complainant’s graphics, images, designs, content and logos.
The Respondent does not have a legal right to use the name “dafa” as part of its domain name. The Respondent is not in any way connected with the Complainant nor is it authorized to use its intellectual property rights for its operations as a licensee or in any capacity. Further, the fact that aside from using the word “dafa” in its domains, the Respondent is likewise illegally using the Complainant’s graphics, images, designs, content and logos, all of which are indicative of Respondent’s intention to deceive users to think that their websites are affiliated with the Complainant.
The Respondent is using “dafa” in the disputed domain names in bad faith and its activities fall within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.
As evident from screenshots of Respondent’s websites, Respondent is not only using the marks of the Complainant in the disputed domain names, but it has virtually cloned the website by illegally using the Complainant’s graphics, images, designs, content and logos. This is a blatant to attempt to deceive the public in thinking that they are associated with the Complainant and transact business with them.
The Respondent has been sent a cease and desist letter, but no reply was received and they have persisted in their illegal activities.
|