{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100726",
    "time_of_filling": "2014-01-13 14:10:41",
    "domain_names": [
        "danskespilandroid.com",
        "danskespilbingo.com",
        "danskespiliphone.com",
        "danskespilpoker.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Danske Spil A\/S"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Zeusmark Consulting Group, Ms. Anne-Louise B. Andersen",
    "respondent": [
        "IM SARL"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThis Complainant is Danske Spil A\/S, a Danish gaming company based in Denmark. The Danish Parliament founded the company in 1948 and in 2002 the Complainant changed its company name from Dansk Tipstjeneste A\/S to the current name Danske Spil A\/S. \r\n\r\nFrom 1948 up till January 2012 the Complainant had a monopoly on providing gaming in Denmark and after the partial gaming liberalization in January 2012, the Complainant kept its 65-year-old monopoly on providing a number of games e.g. LOTTO, bingo, casino and poker. \r\n\r\nSince 1948 the Complainant has marketed an increasing number of games and today the Complainant's gaming business includes all types of betting and lottery games distributed through authorized agents and online via the Complainant's official website danskespil.dk.  ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any pending or decided proceeding related to the disputed domain names.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nComplainant claims that:\r\n\r\nthe Complainant´s trade mark DANSKE SPIL is well-known and that this fact has been confirmed in a previous WIPO decision, see e.g Danske Spil A\/S v. Peter Joergensen, WIPO Case no. D2011-0298. In order to support this statement Complainant has also attached a Supreme Court decision  (Case 28872009 and 289\/2009). The Supreme Court found that the Complainant had established an unregistered right to the trade mark and company name “DANSKE SPIL” in May 2008.\r\n\r\nThe contested domain names danskespilandroid.com and danskespiliphone.com are confusingly similar to the trade mark DANSKE SPIL, in which the Complainant holds rights. \r\n\r\nThe addition of the generic words “android” and “iphone” are not sufficient to differentiate the disputed domain names danskespilandroid.com and danskespiliphone.com from the Complainant´s well-known trade mark DANSKE SPIL, on the contrary the use of the mentioned generic words increases the likelihood of confusion because the words refer to activities in connection with the gaming services provided by the Complainant. \r\n\r\nIn addition, the contested domain names danskespilbingo.com and danskespilpoker.com fully consist of the Complainant´s trade marks DANSKE SPIL BINGO and DANSKE SPIL POKER with the suffix gTLD “.com”. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant´s trade marks DANSKE SPIL, DANSKE SPIL BINGO and DANSKE SPIL CASINO in the domain names or in any other manner from the Complainant, nor has the Complainant agreed in any way to such use or application by the Respondent.  At no time did the Respondent have authorization from the Complainant to register the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no legitimate rights in the contested domain names danskespilandroid.com, danskespilbingo.com, danskespiliphone.com and danskespilpoker.com.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not use the domain names as a trade mark, company name, business or trade name prior to the registration of the disputed domain names, nor is the Respondent otherwise commonly known in reference to the names.\r\n\r\nThe domains danskespilandroid.com, danskespilbingo.com, danskespiliphone.com and danskespilpoker.com are inactive. \r\n\r\nThe domain name danskespiliphone.com also hosted third-party ads in April 2012.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the domain names in question solely contained text to optimize the web pages in different search engines and thereby generate traffic to the domains in question making them attractive for the Complainant or competitors of the Complainant.  \r\n\r\nDue to the fact that the domain names in question are inactive, it can be concluded that the Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.\r\n\r\nIn conclusion the Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names danskespilandroid.com, danskespilbingo.com, danskespiliphone.com and danskespilpoker.com.\r\n\r\nC: The domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nRegistration in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s company name and trade mark DANSKE SPIL had been used for many years before the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names and due to the fact that the Complainant and the Complainant´s trade mark DANSKE SPIL is well-known, it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the domain names without prior knowledge as to the existence of the Complainant and the Complainant´s trade marks.  \r\n\r\nThe Respondent´s registration of the domain names danskespilandroid.com, danskespilbingo.com, danskespiliphone.com and danskespilpoker.com prevents the Complainant from registering the domain names and using the well-known company name and trade mark DANSKE SPIL and the trade marks DANSKE SPIL BINGO and DANSKE SPIL CASINO in the domain names in connection with the Complainants gaming business.\r\n\r\nBad faith use\r\n\r\nCurrently the domain names in question are inactive hence the Respondent is not using the domain names for active web pages. The domain names are therefore used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent´s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant´s trade marks. The Respondent has done so to generate user traffic to the websites and as a result of this traffic the Respondent can offer to sell the domain names in question to the Complainant or competitors of the Complainant. \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not file a response",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain names are 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).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the Respondent have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "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.\r\n\r\nThere are a number of procedural complications in this case. They are as follows:\r\n\r\n(i) Some of the attachments to the Complaint were filed in Danish whereas the language of the proceeding was and is English. As well, Complainant's website www.danskespil.com (to which the Complainant refers for further information) is solely in Danish; \r\n(ii) The written notice  of the Complaint (sent to the Respondent) was returned to the Czech Arbitration Court as undelivered, stating the reason why it was not duly delivered in Arabic;\r\n(iii) The Panel decision that an additional fee was due from the Complainant.\r\n\r\nIt is this Panel's opinion that taking a decision partially based on documents written in languages the Panel is not familiar with would have been quite questionable.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the language regime provided by Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules serves to protect the interests of the Respondent.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel considers it necessary to undertake his own inquiries to understand all the documents and information that are deemed to be relevant for the proceeding.\r\n\r\nIn addition to the attachments to the Complaint that were filed in Danish, also the explanation why the written notice of the Complaint was returned to the Czech Arbitration Court - that is written in Arabic - is an element that needs to be understood and then evaluated.   \r\n\r\nIndeed, the Panel is requested to be fair with both parties, thus it would have been unfair to the Respondent to solely rely on Complainant's statements regarding the attachments to the complaint that were in Danish. \r\n\r\nFinally, the Panel noted, from the WhoIs of the disputed domain names, that the Respondent appears to be indicated as the holder of more than 2.000 domain names. The Complainant has not mentioned this fact and the Respondent has not defended itself. The Panel considers this element quite important. Therefore, in compliance with his powers, has conducted some limited searches to establish whether this fact could be relevant to infer Respondent's bad faith in registering the disputed domain names or not.\r\n\r\nFor all the above reasons the Panel has decided to avoid a “simplified decision” and thus requested the payment of the additional fee from the Complainant.\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Dr.  Fabrizio Bedarida"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2014-03-13 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant has documented to be the registered owner of the Danish trademarks \"DANSKE SPIL\" (word) registered on June 25, 2012, \"DANSKE SPIL BINGO\" (word) - registered on January 20, 2013 and \"DANSKE SPIL POKER\" (word) registered on November 7, 2012.\r\n\r\nComplainant has also indicated (without documenting it) to be the holder of several trademark registrations for DANSKE SPIL and device, the first registration of these trademarks dates back to the year 2001. The Panel has verified this data.    \r\n\r\nIn addition, Complainant’s company name has been DANSKE SPIL A\/S since 2002.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has shown to be the holder of the following domain names:  danskespil.com (transferred to the Complainant following a UDRP decision issued on May 2, 2011), danskespil-poker.com (registered on September 22, 2012)  and danskespilpoker.dk  (registered on November 4, 2011).\r\n\r\nComplainant has also indicated to be the holder of many other domain names containing and\/or corresponding to its trademarks, in support Complainant has attached a list of these domain names. The data provided does not include the dates of registration of the domain names. The Panel has however verified that some of them such as danskespil.dk dates back to May 5, 2000.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant has documented to have established an unregistered right to the trade mark and company name “DANSKE SPIL” in May 2008. In support of this statement Complainant has attached a Supreme Court decision  (Case 28872009 and 289\/2009). \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered on August 26, 2010.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "DANSKESPILANDROID.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DANSKESPILBINGO.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DANSKESPILIPHONE.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DANSKESPILPOKER.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}