Case number | CAC-UDRP-105694 |
---|---|
Time of filing | 2023-08-11 09:19:46 |
Domain names | bwin-pt.com |
Case administrator
Organization | Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin) |
---|
Complainant
Organization | Entain Operations Limited |
---|
Complainant representative
Organization | Mr Kostas Retzopoulos (Stobbs IP) |
---|
Respondent
Name | Nikolas Ioannis Thrasyvoulou |
---|
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.
- International word trademark No 886220, registered on February 3, 2006; or
- International figurative trademark No 896530, registered on March 16, 2006.
1) Provided the Complainant has a registered trademark at the time of commencing proceedings, the panellist will satisfy the threshold of holding ‘rights’, for the purpose of Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(i) - WIPO Overview 3.0, Paragraph 1.1.2. The Complainant further relies on prior domain dispute decisions, where Panels have found the Complainant has rights in the BWIN brand.
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the trade mark “BWIN” in its entirety, with the addition of a hyphen and ‘pt’. The inclusion of the term “pt” alongside the BWIN trade mark does nothing to alter the impression in the eyes of the average internet user. Prior panelists have reached the same conclusions regarding the addition of non-distinctive terms in paragraph 4(a)(i). A recent example can be seen in the case between Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG Fundacion Comercio Electronico. CAC Case No. 103973 <boehringeringelheimequinerebate.com>.
2) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s BWIN trade mark, or at the very least, confusingly similar. The Complainant further submits that the gTLD suffix (.com), is an integral technical part of the disputed domain name, may be disregarded in the determination of confusing similarity.
Nothing from the content of the disputed domain name domain name suggests that the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The disputed domain name is being used to exploit and capitalise on the success and recognisability of the distinctive BWIN trade mark, in addition to the advertisement of services related to online gambling and sports betting.
The Complainant acquired the BWIN trade mark in the European Union and registered under its subsidiary entity on December 10, 2009 in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42, covering computer software; advertising; financial and monetary services related to sports betting and gaming; message sending via the internet in connection with sports betting and gaming; and entertainment in the field of sports betting and gaming, among other things. The Complainant submits the disputed domain name until recently operated a website promoting online gambling and betting activities. The website at the disputed domain name uses the Complainant’s BWIN trade mark. Upon accessing the website, the disputed domain name, the user was presented with promotional offers inferring an authorisation provided on behalf of the Complainant and its subsidiaries, when no such authorisation has been provided: BONUS DE BOA-VINDAS BWIN (Translation: WELCOME BONUS BWIN) -FROM €5 AND A 1ST RISK FREE BET UP TO €50.”
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. P
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.
- The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
- The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar
II. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As stated in the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at Section 2.1, while the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often-impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.
- bwin-pt.com: Transferred
PANELLISTS
Name | Petr Hostaš |
---|