{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101054", "time_of_filling": "2018-08-14 14:24:52", "domain_names": [ "dafabetsg.com", "dafabetsg1.com", "dafabetsg2.com", "dafabetsg3.com" ], "case_administrator": "Sandra Lanczová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Emphasis Services Limited" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Choong Wei Kiat" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant EMPHASIS SERVICES LIMITED (the “Complainant”), through its subsidiaries and licensees, operates websites that offer online gaming and betting services under licenses that have been issued to it in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, Ireland , the Philippines, Curacao and Kenya.\r\n\r\n The Complainant uses the name DAFABET to operate its business which consists of several gaming sites on the internet. It operates under the name DAFABET, which is also its trademark. Its domain names, such as also incorporate the DAFABET trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s DAFABET trademark is registered in several jurisdictions. It is particularly well known, as the Complainant is the sponsor of several football teams. The Complainant is regarded as one of the most prominent e-gamers.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has registered all of the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nIt is apparent from the WHOIS records available that the domain names were registered by the Respondent on the following dates.\r\n\r\n - May 8, 2018;\r\n - May 11, 2018;\r\n - May 11, 2018; and\r\n - May 11, 2018.\r\n\r\nEach of the domain names incorporates the DAFABET trademark in its entirety and other letters and numbers. It uses the domain names to resolve to websites that attempt to pass themselves off as the Complainant’s official websites, carrying content identical to that on the Complainant’s websites and offering services in competition to those of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant wishes to stop this conduct of the Respondent and to that end has brought this proceeding which seeks the transfer of the disputed domain names from the Respondent to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not filed a Response and is in default. \r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which the Panel is aware.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nComplainant made the following contentions.\r\n\r\nIDENTITY OR CONFUSING SIMILARITY OF THE DOMAIN NAME WITH THE TRADEMARK \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is the registrant of each of the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DAFABET trademark. That is so because they all use the trademark DAFABET, to which has been added the letters “sg\" and, in the case of the second, third and fourth domain names, consecutive numbers.\r\n\r\nAll of the domain names resolve to websites which are substantially clones of the Complainant’s website, as the Respondent has illegally appropriated the Complainant’s graphics, images, designs, content and logos and used them on its own websites.\r\n\r\nThus, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.\r\n\r\nRIGHTS AND LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. That is so for the following reasons.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant must first make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. Once such a prima facie case is made out, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that a prima facie case is made out for the following reasons. \r\n\r\nFirstly, Respondent is not in any way connected with the Complainant nor is it authorized to use the Complainant’s intellectual property for its operations as a licensee or in any other capacity.\r\n\r\nSecondly, as well as using the word DAFABET in its domain names, Respondent is illegally using the Complainant’s graphics, images, designs, content and logos on its website, all of which are indicative of Respondent’s intention to deceive users into thinking that the Respondent‘s websites are affiliated with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThirdly, on the known facts, it would be impossible for the Respondent to bring itself within any of the grounds available to a registrant to show a right or legitimate interest in the domain names.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nREGISTRATION AND USE IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant relies in particular on paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which deals with the creation of confusion with a trademark. \r\n\r\nThe intention of the Respondent can be discerned from the way in which it has illegally taken the Complainant's intellectual property and used it on its websites. The use of that material is designed to give the impression that the websites are affiliated with the Complainant by using the DAFABET mark in the domain name and by constructing websites that are almost the same as that of Complainant's official website. The Respondent has virtually cloned the Complainant's website by illegally using the Complainant’s graphics, images, designs, content and logos in an attempt to deceive the public. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Respondent must have been aware of the DATABET mark when it registered the disputed domain names because the mark is registered in various jurisdictions, it has attracted goodwill and notoriety, the Respondent has illegally used the Complainant’s logos, content, images and designs on its website and the Complainant itself has garnered recognition because of its sponsorship of several football teams.\r\n\r\nIn addition, Respondent was sent a cease and desist letter on behalf of the Complainant, but no reply was received, while the Respondent has continued its illegal activities.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.", "rights": "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).", "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 name (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 name has been registered and is 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": [ "The Hon. Neil Brown, QC" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-09-10 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered owner of several trademarks for DAFABET and the Panel accepts that evidence. The evidence shows that one such trademark is the word mark for DAFABET issued by the European Union Intellectual Property Office, No.012067088, registered on February 2, 2014 , of which the Complainant is the registered owner (‘‘the DAFABET mark“). As it is well established that a trademark registered with a national or international body confers rights for the purposes of the UDRP on the registered owner of the mark, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established such rights. ", "decision_domains": { "DAFABETSG.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "DAFABETSG1.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "DAFABETSG2.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "DAFABETSG3.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }