{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100815",
    "time_of_filling": "2014-08-15 11:27:11",
    "domain_names": [
        "dafa789.com",
        "59369.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Emphasis Services Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Gao Congfeng"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nComplainant claims that through its subsidiaries it operates websites offering online gaming and betting with licenses issued in the Philippines and the Isle of Man. Complainant owns and operates several gaming sites under the brand “Dafa” (i.e. dafabet.com & dafa888.com).  Complainant states it has been using for 12 years the name “Dafa” in varying combinations to designate its online gaming and betting offerings. \r\nIn fact Complainant contends that it, has registered its rights over the brand “Dafa” in Malaysia and Hong Kong and has likewise secured a CTM registration [under the name of its wholly owned subsidiary Asian BGE (Isle of Man) Limited] for the name and graphic representation (logo) for “Dafabet”.\r\n\r\nAccording to Complainant, “Dafabet” is a well-known mark and is currently the shirt sponsor for the Aston Villa Football Club and an official partner for the Everton Football Club, both playing the English Premier League (where the Dafabet mark and logo are prominently displayed). \r\n\r\nFurthermore, Dafabet is also the sponsor of the name sponsor for the recently concluded World Snooker Championship. \r\nDafabet was also named by eGaming Review as 19th among the 40 most influential e-gaming operators in the world.\r\n\r\nPARTIES’ CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT: \r\n\r\nIdentical or Confusingly Similar\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, Respondent’s registered domain names are confusingly similar to the “Dafa” mark owned by the Complainant. Essentially, Respondent has appropriated the trademark Dafa by abbreviating it and illegally used Complainant's IP to lead consumers to believe that it is affiliated with Complainant. \r\n\r\nRights or Legitimate Interests\r\n\r\nComplainant claims it is the owner of intellectual property rights pertaining to “Dafa” due to its registration in various jurisdiction and its usage and notoriety. Complainant denies any direct connection with Respondent that Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s intellectual property in its domain name and website are unauthorized and illegal. \r\n\r\nComplainant states that Respondent will not be able to show prior usage, registration or any right to use the mark “Dafa” for its website. In fact, Respondent’s illegal usage of Complainant’s logos, images and content on its website belies and claim to the mark “Dafa” except as blatant copying and cloning of the Complainant’s website in bad faith.\r\n\r\nBad Faith\r\n\r\nComplainant contends that Respondent’s illegal use of the Complainant’s intellectual property on its website is indicative of its intentions in using \"Dafa\" in its domain name. The Respondent is making it appear that its websites are affiliated with the Complainant by not only using the “Dafa” mark in its domain, but also making the website appear almost exactly the same as that of Complainant. \r\n\r\nAccording to Complainant it is evident from screenshots of Respondent’s websites that Respondent is not only using the marks of the Complainant in its domain name, 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.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, Complainant claims that the Respondent is well aware that Complainant is the owner of the mark “Dafa” because of: \r\n\r\n4.\tRegistrations in various jurisdictions;\r\n\r\n5.\tGoodwill and notoriety of the trademarks;\r\n\r\n6.\tRespondent’s illegal usage of Complainant’s logos, content, images and designs in its website;\r\n\r\nMoreover, Complainant states that “Dafa” and “Dafabet” are not only registered marks in various jurisdictions, it is likewise well known marks due to sponsorship with the English Premier League and the World Snooker Championship. Further, any claim of Respondent to lack of knowledge over Complainant’s ownership over the name “Dafa” is negated by the fact that it has used the Complainant’s marks on its website. \r\n\r\nFinally, Complainant contends that Respondent has been sent a cease and desist letter, but no reply was received and they have persisted in their illegal activities",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.",
    "no_response_filed": "RESPONDENT: \r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response has been filed.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name <dafa789.com> 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).  However, the Complainant has not shown that the Domain Name <59369.com> is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name <dafa789.com> (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy). The Panel makes no finding on this element with respect to the Domain Name <59369.com>.",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name <dafa789.com> has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).The Panel makes no finding on this element with respect to the Domain Name <59369.com>.",
    "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.",
    "decision": "Partially Accepted\/Partially Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Douglas M. Isenberg"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2014-09-29 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant states that \"through its subsidiaries, [Complainant] operates websites offering online gaming and betting with licenses issued in the Philippines 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 12 years, used the name 'Dafa' in varying combinations to designate its online gaming and betting offerings.\"  Complainant further states, and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of multiple federal trademark registrations for marks that consist of or contain \"DAFA,\" including No. 302048148 in Hong Kong for DAFA for use in connection with, inter alia, \"[c]asino services\" (registered September 11, 2012).",
    "decision_domains": {
        "DAFA789.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "59369.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}