{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101064",
    "time_of_filling": "2016-04-26 09:19:23",
    "domain_names": [
        "df85.net",
        "dafa95.net",
        "dafa85.net",
        "dafa111222.com",
        "dafa23456.com",
        "888dafaylc.com",
        "888dfylc.com",
        "dafa000111.com",
        "dafa222333.com",
        "dafa333444.com",
        "dafa34567.com",
        "dafa444555.com",
        "dafa45678.com",
        "dafa555666.com",
        "dafa666777.com",
        "dafayulechen.com",
        "df111888.com",
        "df23456.com",
        "df34567.com",
        "df45678.com",
        "df56789.com",
        "dfdc888.com",
        "wwwdafa85.com",
        "wwwdafa95.com",
        "wwwdf85.com",
        "wwwdf95.com",
        "wwwdfylc.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Emphasis Services Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "zhouhan zhou"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) (the “Policy”) provides that Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain names:\r\n\r\n1. that Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and\r\n2. that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and\r\n3. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIdentical or Confusingly Similar\r\n\r\nThe Respondent’s registered domain names are confusingly similar to the “Dafa” mark owned by the Complainant. Essentially, Respondent has appropriated the trademark Dafa and added numbers after the mark. In Nintendo of America, Inc. vs. Garett N. Holland et al (Case No. D2000-1483), the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center held that a user of a mark may not avoid likely confusion by appropriating another’s entire mark and adding descriptive or non-distinctive matter to it. It further added that a domain may be deemed as identical or similar if it incorporates the primary, distinctive element of the trademark. In this complaint, the Respondent copied the whole mark of “Dafa” and merely added numbers. \r\n\r\nRights or Legitimate Interests\r\n\r\nAs previously mentioned, Complainant 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\nRespondent will not be able to show prior usage, registration or any right to use the mark “Dafa” for its website. \r\n\r\nBad Faith\r\n\r\nAs above-stated, the Respondent is engaged in the same line of business as that of Complainant which renders his use of the domain names in bad faith as it is an attempt to mislead users that the Complainant and the Respondent are related.\r\n\r\nThis is indicative of its intentions in using the Complainant’s mark “Dafa” and \"df\" in its domain names. \r\n \r\nThe criteria for the determination of usage of domain name in bad faith is set forth in the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of which states: \r\n\r\n“(iv) by using the domain name, (Respondent) ha(s) intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to (Respondent’s) web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of (Respondent’s) web site or location or of a product or service on (Respondent’s) web site or location.”\r\n\r\n• The Respondent is well aware that the Complainant is the owner of the mark “Dafa” because of: \r\n1. Registrations in various jurisdictions;\r\n2. Goodwill and notoriety of the trademarks;\r\n\r\n• As previously mentioned, “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. \r\n \r\n• The 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": "There are no other pending legal proceedings.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "rights": "On June 10, 2016, the Panel requested the Complainant to:\r\n\r\n- produce the Whois of the contested domain names, to mention their creation date, and to produce the screenshots of the accessible respective websites. An extract of Whois data was produced together with the related screenshots, for each disputed domain name, within the prescribed deadline;\r\n\r\n- produce the license agreement with the owner of the cited European Union trademarks and the alleged assignment to the Complainant. Indeed, the Complainant responded, producing new exhibits proving that the European trademarks were assigned to its benefit.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names are composed either with the verbal element DAFA, which is a coined trademark or with the consonants “DF” of the verbal trademark DAFA, which is composed with two consonants and one vowel.\r\n\r\nAdding numbers does not exclude any likelihood of confusion, taking into account the fact that the disputed domain names are used for gambling services, for which numbers are very important.\r\n\r\nThis analysis does not apply to three of the disputed domain names, which include other letters than “D” “A” and “”F”, what excludes any likelihood of confusion: \r\n\r\n888dfylc.com\r\ndfdc888.com\r\nwwwdfylc.com\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that, under the exception of  888dfylc.com, dfdc888.com and wwwdfylc.com, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to its DAFA and DAFABET trademarks in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy). ",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The provided screenshots relating to each disputed domain name mention the website address www.dafa9999.com. It shows the intent to rely on the DAFA and DAFABET trademarks’ image, although there is no relation or partnership between the parties.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not even try to contest the cease and desist letter. It merely answered “Give us a week. I’m changing the company name! Thank you!”\r\n\r\nGiven the type of service provided by the parties, the Panel finds that it can not tolerate any domain name registration that is confusingly similar to the opposed trademarks and that resolves to misleading websites.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The complaint was sent by post to the Respondent and it was returned because the postal address mentioned on the Whois is “insufficient” to enable the delivery of post.\r\n\r\nProviding insufficient postal addresses to be mentioned on the Whois database is a violation of the disputed domain names registration agreements.\r\n\r\nThe response to the cease and desist letter was sent by email from the address dafa888du@gmail.com, that includes the trademark DAFA. It announced a modification of the company name, suggesting that it was supposed to resolve the dispute.\r\n\r\nNothing happened and the complaint even remained unanswered.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)( iii)of the Policy: “you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor”.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, given the here above facts, the Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain names were used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv)of the Policy “ by using the domain name, (Respondent) ha(s) intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to (Respondent’s) web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of (Respondent’s) web site or location or of a product or service on (Respondent’s) web site or location.” \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Marie Marie-Emmanuelle Haas, Avocat"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-07-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies on prior rights on various trademarks protected in Class 41 for casino facilities:\r\n\r\n-\tword & device European union trademark DAFABET No 012067138, also protected in Class 38 for providing access to poker tournament;\r\n\r\n-\tEuropean union trademark DAFABET No 012067088, also protected in Class 38 for providing access to poker tournament;\r\n\r\n-\tMalaysian trademark DAFA No 2011019075;\r\n\r\n-\tHong Kong national trademark DAFA No 302048148138.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were created on October 26 or October 27, 2015 and resolve to the websites dedicated to gambling services.\r\n\r\nThe list of the disputed domain names is as follows in the complaint dated April 25, 2016:\r\n\r\ndf85.net\r\ndafa95.net\r\ndafa85.net\r\ndafa111222.com\r\ndafa23456.com\r\ndafa345345.com\r\n888dafaylc.com\r\n888dfylc.com\r\ndafa000111.com\r\ndafa222333.com\r\ndafa333444.com\r\ndafa34567.com\r\ndafa444555.com\r\ndafa45678.com\r\ndafa555666.com\r\ndafa666777.com\r\ndafa95.net\r\ndafayulechen.com\r\ndf111888.com\r\ndf23456.com\r\ndf34567.com\r\ndf45678.com\r\ndf56789.com\r\ndf56789.com\r\ndfdc888.com\r\nwwwdafa85.com\r\nwwwdafa95.com\r\nwwwdf85.com\r\nwwwdf95.com\r\nwwwdfylc.com\r\n\r\nThe domain name < dafa345345.com> is not mentioned any more in the amended complaint dated May 3, 2016. The Panel asked the Complainant to explain if it wants to keep this domain name in the list of the disputed domain names. The Complainant did not respond. Therefore, this domain name shall not be taken into account.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "DF85.NET": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA95.NET": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA85.NET": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA111222.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA23456.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "888DAFAYLC.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "888DFYLC.COM": "REJECTED",
        "DAFA000111.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA222333.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA333444.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA34567.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA444555.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA45678.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA555666.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA666777.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFAYULECHEN.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DF111888.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DF23456.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DF34567.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DF45678.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DF56789.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DFDC888.COM": "REJECTED",
        "WWWDAFA85.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "WWWDAFA95.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "WWWDF85.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "WWWDF95.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "WWWDFYLC.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}