Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107932

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has proved ownership of the following trademark rights:

• European Union trademark « LINEBET + LOGO » No. 018952983, filed on November 20, 2023, covering services in classes 35, 41 and 42;
• European Union trademark «LINEBET + LOGO » No. 018952940, filed on November 20, 202”, covering services in classes 35, 41 and 42;
• European Union trademark « LINEBET + LOGO » No. 018952911, filed on November 20, 2023, covering services in classes 35, 41 and 42;
• European Union trademark « LINEBET + LOGO » No. 018953504, filed on November 20, 2023, covering services in classes 35, 41 and 42.

According to the information provided in the Complaint, the Complainant, Tonks LTD or Tonks Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Aspro N.V., operates internationally as a provider of online gambling services under the brand LINEBET. Its offerings primarily include online slots, live casino games, and sports betting events. Established in 2019, the Complainant’s online platform, operating from  

The Complainant’s platform is available in more than 60 languages, accepts over 100 payment methods and multiple currencies, and has experienced significant growth in user registrations and traffic worldwide. In addition to its website, the Complainant operates a mobile application for iOS and Android, and its services have been widely reviewed and publicized, including through media platforms and consumer review sites.

The Complainant has received industry recognition, including an award for “Excellence in Sports Betting Innovation 2024,” and has engaged in sponsorships and official partnerships in Africa and the MENA region. It also operates an affiliate program through <linebet.partners>, which has attracted tens of thousands of affiliates worldwide. The Complainant actively promotes its products and services under the LINEBET brand on its website, affiliate program, mobile application, and social media platforms.

The Respondent registered the domain name <linebet.global> on March 8, 2024. The disputed domain name resolves to a website in English, entitled “Linebet Bangladesh Online Website”.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.

The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the requirements of the Policy. The Respondent therefore requests that the Complaint be denied.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or 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.

Identity (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy)

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark LINEBET through its European Union registrations. For the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, such registrations are sufficient to demonstrate trademark rights.

A comparison between the disputed domain name <linebet.global> and the Complainant’s trademark « LINEBET » shows that the disputed domain name reproduces the mark in its entirety. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain « .global » does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. It is well established under UDRP practice that the.TLD (To Level Domain) is generally disregarded in assessing identity or similarity, as it is a technical requirement of domain name registration. Contrary to the Respondent’s allegation, the “.global” is not likely to distinguish the domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. Additionally and specifically in this case, the suffix « .global » is even likely to reinforce an association with the Complainant, suggesting a worldwide presence.

Contrary to the Respondent’s allegation, the Panel finds that the terms “line” and “bet”, while having a direct meaning and relating to betting activities are here used jointly and therefore are considered as direct references to the Complainant’s trademark.

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LINEBET trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

Absence of Rights or Legitimate Interests (paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden of proof therefore shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate such rights or interests, and no convincing evidence has been provided.

The Complainant’s LINEBET trademarks were filed on November 20, 2023, whereas the disputed domain name <linebet.global> was registered on March 8, 2024. The Panel notes that the Complainant’s rights therefore predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.

There is no indication that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its LINEBET trademark, as it has been confirmed by the Respondent himself in its response : “The Respondent never received a license or authorization from the Complainant”. Nor is there evidence that the Respondent owns, or has applied for, any trademark corresponding to the disputed domain name.

In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

Bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy):

The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name was both registered and is being used in bad faith.

In this case, the Panel notes first that the Complainant’s LINEBET trademarks were filed on November 20, 2023, while the disputed domain name <linebet.global> was registered on March 8, 2024. This close sequence of events, together with the Complainant’s demonstrated international activity under the LINEBET, supports the conclusion that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and deliberately chose to register a domain name identical to its mark. It is implausible that the Respondent would have independently selected the term LINEBET without knowledge of the Complainant’s rights. Furthermore, at the time of registration, a basic Google search would have put the Respondent on notice that LINEBET was already in use.

Secondly, the evidence shows that the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a website imitating the Complainant’s business. The website reproduced the LINEBET name and logo, used the label « Linebet Bangladesh » and invited users to « Register » or « Download. ». The Panel finds that there was a clear intent to appear as LINEBET, contrary to its allegations.  The « Register » function redirected users to another gambling platform. Such use is a clear attempt to trade on the reputation of the Complainant by creating the impression that the website is connected to, or endorsed by, the Complainant. This falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, as it demonstrates an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the site.

Furthermore, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not provide any proof of the use of the disputed domain as “an independent informational or affiliate resource in the online gaming sector” therefore proving the good faith use of the disputed domain.

In light of the timing of the registration, the identity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s mark, and the deceptive use of the domain name to divert Internet users to competing services, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.