{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101059",
    "time_of_filling": "2016-05-04 10:02:53",
    "domain_names": [
        "dafa71888.com",
        "dafa31888.com",
        "dafa41888.com",
        "dafa51888.com",
        "dafa61888.com",
        "dafa81888.com",
        "dafa91888.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Emphasis Services Limited"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "yangqijie"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, through its subsidiaries and licensees, operates websites offering online gaming and betting with licenses issued in the Philippines, Isle of Man and the United Kingdom. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns and operates several gaming sites under the brand “Dafa” (i.e. dafabet.com & dafa888.com). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has, for 13 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 an EU TM registration for the name and graphic representation (logo) for “Dafabet”.\r\n\r\n“Dafabet” is a well-known mark and is currently the Official Main Club Sponsor for the Sunderland and Blackburn Rovers Football Clubs, Official International Betting Partners for Everton and Celtic Football Clubs (where the “Dafabet” mark and logo are prominently displayed). Further, “Dafabet” has also sponsored high level sporting events such as the World Snooker Championship among others. \r\n\r\n“Dafabet” was recently named by eGaming Review as 21st among the 50 most influential e-gaming operators in the world.\r\n\r\nRespondent was sent a cease and desist letter by the Complainant but did not respond or desist.  ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other proceedings the Panel is aware of. ",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nIdentical or Confusingly Similar\r\nThe Respondent’s disputed 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 (WIPO Case No. D2000-1483) 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 case, the Respondent copied the whole mark of “Dafa” and merely added numbers. \r\n\r\nRights or Legitimate Interests\r\nThe Complainant denies any connection with Respondent and says the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s intellectual property in its domain names and on its website are unauthorized and illegal and infringing. The Respondent cannot show prior usage or any right or licence to use the mark “Dafa.” \r\n\r\nBad Faith\r\nThe Respondent’s infringing use of the Complainant’s intellectual property on its website is revealing as to its intention in using the Complainant’s mark “Dafa” in its domain name.  The Respondent is making it appear that its and its gaming websites are affiliated with the Complainant by not only using the “Dafa” mark in its domain, but also making the website appear as that of Complainant. \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“(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\nThe Respondent is clearly well aware that the Complainant is the owner of the mark “Dafa” because it has notice from the trade mark registrations in various jurisdictions and the international goodwill and repute of the trademarks. \r\n\r\nBad faith is most clearly demonstrated by the Respondent’s infringing use of the Complainant’s logo on its website.  This is a blatant to attempt to deceive the public into thinking that the sites are associated with the Complainant and leverage that to transact business with them. It certainly negates any claim to innocence.  ",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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 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 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": [
        "Victoria McEvedy"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-06-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies on its registered national marks in Hong Kong (No. 302048148) and Malaysia (No.2011019075) for the word marks “Dafa” in class 41 for Casino services and its EU TM (No. 12067138) for a logo mark with a word element “Dafa” also in Class 41 for Casino services. It also relies on its common law rights arising from use in the UK and Asia and elsewhere.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "DAFA71888.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA31888.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA41888.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA51888.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA61888.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA81888.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "DAFA91888.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}