FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES ARE IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/p>\n
The Complainant is an international sports-betting and gaming group, operating both online and in the retail sector and employs over 24,000 individuals in 20 offices across 5 continents.
The Complainant claims that it has a market capitalization value (the market value of a company’s outstanding shares) of over twelve (12) billion British pounds and that its core markets are the UK, Germany, Italy and the United States. It refers to extensive social media presence, awards and accolades associated with the “bwin” trademark and mark’s significant reputation.
The Complainant claims that its subsidiary company has registered “bwin” trademarks and cites previous UDRP decisions where Panels found the Complainant has rights in the “BWIN” mark.
The Complainant claims that it has been operating the domain name <bwin.com> since August 22, 2005 and one of its subsidiary companies has other numerous domain names with the “bwin” word element.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “bwin” trademark as they incorporate the well-known term “bwin” in its entirety.
The Complainant further requests to disregard the TLD suffixes when making an assessment as to the disputed domain names, as these are merely a technical requirement, used for domain name registrations.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the “BWIN” marks. The disputed domain names consist of two elements, namely the “BWIN” mark, prefixed or suffixed with a numerical value. <\/p>\n
THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Bearing in mind the considerable reputation of the “BWIN” brand and the Complainant’s operations in the online betting industry since as early as 2000, there is no believable or realistic reason for registration or use of the disputed domain names other than to take advantage of the Complainant’s rights. The disputed domain names were only created recently.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names resolve to live sites and are being used by the Respondent for the purpose of imitating the Complainant’s genuine website.
Use of the “BWIN” brand and trade dress to imitate the Complainant’s genuine website cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant claims that to the best of its knowledge, the Respondent has never been known as “BWIN” at any point in time.
The Complainant alleges that nothing from the content of the websites by the domain names suggests that the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The disputed domain names are being used to free-ride on the distinctive trademark within the Asian online betting market.<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES WERE REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s submissions on the bad faith element can be summarized as follows:
- The Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s behavior falls within par. 4 b. (ii) and par. 4 b. (iv) of the Policy.
- The Complainant states that the disputed domain names operate identical websites that advertise online gambling and betting activities. The websites use the Complainant’s “BWIN” trademark, in addition to the trademarks of third-party gambling companies and likeness of basketball and\/or football players with a considerable reputation within both the sports and sports betting industries.
- The Complainant submits upon accessing the websites at the disputed domain names, the user is encouraged to communicate through end-to-end encrypted communication applications, such as Telegram. According to the Complainant the options to participate in varied gambling and betting games are not accessible and encourage users to enter their user name, password and telephone numbers.
- The Complainant alleges that the intention of the Respondent is to divert consumers (intended for the Complainant), to the Respondent’s website. The Complainant is concerned that the content on the disputed domain names and alleges the intention of the Respondent to “phish” personal and\/or financial information from the Complainants customers.
- The Complainant claims that the Respondent also uses the Complainant’s official support contact address on all 25 disputed domain names, as a means of contact with the consumers. By using the Complainant’s official customer support contact address, the Respondent intends to create an affiliation with the Complainant and give the disputed domain names \"an air of authenticity\".
- The intention of the Respondent is therefore to attract users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site, constituting bad faith under the Policy.
- The Complainant argues that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct through the registration of the disputed domain names in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in disputed domain names, in accordance with Policy, Paragraph 4(b)(ii).
- The Respondent has registered multiple confusingly similar domain names between 20 May 2022 and 18 August 2022, using a variety of numerical values and predominantly the same TLDs ‘.com’.
Therefore, the Complainant claims the disputed domain names were registered and being used in bad faith.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant's contentions are summarized in the Factual Background section above.<\/p>\n
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>\n
Consolidation request<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant requests to consolidate this proceeding in respect of all 25 (twenty five) disputed domain names and the Respondent. According to the Registrar verification the Respondent has the same name but different addresses.<\/p>\n The Complainant submits the registrant of all the disputed domain names is the same person. The Complainant therefore submits the consolidation of the disputed domain names within a singular Complaint is justified.<\/p>\n Under par. 3 (c) of the Rules the complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder and under par. 10 (e) of the Rules the Panel has the authority to decide a consolidation request submitted by a Party.<\/p>\n According to the “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition” (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario (see par. 4.11.2).<\/p>\n The Panel accepts the consolidation request of the Complainant in this dispute based on the following:<\/p>\n - The name of the Respondent as disclosed by the Registrar is the same for all 25 disputed domain names; Based on the above, it appears that the disputed domain names are registered by the same person and they are under common control.<\/p>\n The Panel finds that consolidation will be fair and procedurally efficient for both Parties and accepts the request.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Igor Motsnyi"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-02-02 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant provides a rather lengthy list of trademarks that include the “Bwin” word element owned by Complainant’s subsidiary. Some of these trademarks are:<\/p>\n - the EU trademark “bwin” (word), registration number 007577281, registered on December 10, 2009;<\/p>\n - the EU trademark “bwin” (figurative), registration number 007577331, registered on September 02, 2009;<\/p>\n - the International Trademark registration ““bwin” (figurative), registration number 896530, registered on March 16, 2006, effective inter alia<\/em> in Australia, Germany, Bulgaria, Benelux, Italy, Kazakhstan, the UK and <\/p>\n - the International Trademark registration “bwin” (word), registration number 886220, registered on February 03, 2006, effective inter alia<\/em> in Australia, Benelux, Switzerland, France, the UK, Japan. <\/p>\n The Complainant also cites “bwin” trademark registrations in the name of its subsidiary company effective inter alia<\/em> in Brazil, Canada, Spain, the UK and other jurisdictions. <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"bwineight.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinfour.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinnine.com ": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinone.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinseven.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinsix.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinthree.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwintwo.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"onebwin.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinone.vip": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinone55.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinone66.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinone77.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinone88.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwin-one.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwin-one1.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwin-one2.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwin-one3.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwin-one4.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwin-one5.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwin-one6.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwin-one7.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinone2.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinone3.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"bwinone.org": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent’s creation of 25 identical disputed domain names, incorporating the Complainant’s trade mark and use of the Complainant’s official support email address creates the overall impression that the registrant is the same individual operating the 25 disputed domain names, despite a variation of addresses.<\/p>\n
- All the disputed domain names are used in a similar fashion (for gambling and betting websites with similar content);
- All the disputed domain names are registered via the same Registrar;
- All the disputed domain names were registered within a rather short time-frame;
- The Respondent failed to respond and express any objections against the consolidation request.<\/p>\n