{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101052", "time_of_filling": "2017-06-28 12:58:02", "domain_names": [ "dafa01.net ", "dafa02.net ", "dafa03.net ", "dafa04.net ", "dafa05.net ", "dafa06.net ", "dafa07.net ", "dafa08.net ", "dafa09.net ", "dafa120.com ", "dafa5656.com " ], "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Emphasis Services Limited" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Fei Yu" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, EMPHASIS SERVICES LIMITED, through its subsidiaries and licensees, operates websites offering online gaming and betting with licenses issued in the Philippines, Curacao, UK and the Isle of Man. The Complainant owns and operates several gaming sites under the brand “Dafa” (i.e. & ).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has, for 14 years, used the name “Dafa” in varying combinations to designate its online gaming and betting offerings. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has registered its rights over the brand “Dafa” in Malaysia and Hong Kong and has likewise secured a CTM registration for the name and graphic representation (logo) for “Dafabet”.\r\n\r\n“Dafabet” is a well-known mark through its various sponsorships of commercial clubs: a) Official Main Club Sponsor of Sunderland FC; b) Official Main Club Sponsor of Celtic FC; c) Official Main Club Sponsor of Burnley FC; d) Official International Betting Partner of Everton FC; e) Official Main Club Sponsor of Blackburn Rovers FC; f) Official Main Team Sponsor of Fnatic eSports; g) Official Betting Partner of Wales. \r\n\r\nDafabet was also named by eGaming Review as 23rd among the 40 most influential e-gaming operators in the world.\r\n\r\nThe domains involved in this complaint are identical and confusingly similar to the brands owned by the Complainant as they all use the prefix “dafa”, with a series of numbers and letters attached to the domain. Further, an examination of the content of all domains reveal that they are basically clones of the Complainant’s website and are illegally using the Complainant’s graphics, images, designs, content and logos.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not have a legal right to use the name “dafa” as part of its domain name. The Respondent is not in any way connected with the Complainant nor is it authorized to use its intellectual property rights for its operations as a licensee or in any capacity. Further, the fact that aside from using the word “dafa” in its domains, the Respondent is likewise illegally using the Complainant’s graphics, images, designs, content and logos, all of which are indicative of Respondent’s intention to deceive users to think that their websites are affiliated with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is using “dafa” in the disputed domain names in bad faith and its activities fall within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. \r\n\r\nAs evident from screenshots of Respondent’s websites, Respondent is not only using the marks of the Complainant in the disputed domain names, 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\nThe \tRespondent has been sent a cease and desist letter, but no reply was received and they have persisted in their illegal activities.", "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which the Panel is aware.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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 the Respondent to 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 the disputed 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": [ "Matthew Harris" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-08-11 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of various registered trade marks in a number of different jurisdictions that either comprise or incorporate the text \"DAFA\". These include, by way of example, Hong Kong registered trade mark no. 302048148 for the word mark DAFA in class 41 registered on 3 October 2011.", "decision_domains": { "DAFA01.NET ": "TRANSFERRED", "DAFA02.NET ": "TRANSFERRED", "DAFA03.NET ": "TRANSFERRED", "DAFA04.NET ": "TRANSFERRED", "DAFA05.NET ": "TRANSFERRED", "DAFA06.NET ": "TRANSFERRED", "DAFA07.NET ": "TRANSFERRED", "DAFA08.NET ": "TRANSFERRED", "DAFA09.NET ": "TRANSFERRED", "DAFA120.COM ": "TRANSFERRED", "DAFA5656.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }