{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102418",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-06-30 11:28:29",
    "domain_names": [
        "dafabet.asia"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Emphasis Services Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Tao Da"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nAccording to the information made available by the Complainant, Emphasis Services Limited, through its subsidiaries and licensees, operates websites offering online gaming and betting with licenses issued in the Philippines, Curacao, Kenya, Spain and the United Kingdom. The Complainant informs that it owns and operates several gaming sites under the brand DAFABET and through the website associated with the domain name <dafabet.com>. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also informs that it has, for 18 years, used the name DAFABET to designate its online gaming and betting offerings and that DAFABET is a well-known mark and is currently the Official Main Club Sponsor for Celtic FC, Official Main Team Sponsor for Fulham FC, Principal Club Partner for Norwich City FC, Official Betting Partner of FA Wales and Official Title Sponsor for the World Snooker Championship. DAFABET, according to the information made available by the Complainant, was also named by eGaming Review as among the 50 most influential e-gaming operators in the world.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, at present time, is the owner of trademark registrations for DAFABET, in particular said trademark appears to be protected in the European Union.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name <dafabet.asia> on May 11, 2020.\r\n\r\nIn the Complainant's view the disputed domain name should be transferred to the Complainant, because it constitutes usurpation and violation of the rights of the Complainant with regard to its registered trademark.\r\n\r\nIn accordance with the Complainant's assertions, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, because it wholly incorporates the wording “DAFABET”.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant denies any connection with the Respondent. In particular, according with the Complainant's view, the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademark in its domain name and in its website is unauthorized and illegal.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant observes that the Respondent was surely well aware of the Complainant trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name because of its notoriety. The Complainant also informs that the domain name in dispute is currently inactive due to a DMCA take down notice but that previously said domain name resolved in a serious abuse of the Complainant rights. Actually, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not only using the marks of the Complainant in its domain name, but that, as per the attached screenshots, it, before the DMCA take down notice, has virtually cloned the website by illegally using the Complainant’s graphics, images, designs, content and logos. This, in the Complainant's view, serves to deceive the public in thinking that the Respondent is associated with the Complainant. Therefore, according to the Complainant it is clear that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used to intentionally attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s official website, also creating the impression that the Respondent’s website is sponsored\/affiliated or endorsed by the Complainant.  \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other proceedings, pending or decided, which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n",
    "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": [
        "Avv. Guido Maffei"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-07-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks. In particular, Emphasis Services Limited owns:\r\n\r\n- EU trademark DAFABET (word) no. 12067088 registered on February 17, 2014 for classes 38 and 41;\r\n\r\n- EU trademark DAFABET (logo) no. 12067138 registered on February 17, 2014 for classes 38 and 41; and\r\n\r\n- UK trademark DAFABET (logo) no. 3433886 registered on January 10, 2020 for classes 38 and 41.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "DAFABET.ASIA": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}