{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104284", "time_of_filling": "2022-02-07 09:54:09", "domain_names": [ "kasinotampere.com", "kasinotampere.info" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Veikkaus Oy" ], "complainant_representative": "Berggren Oy", "respondent": [ "Fairwin Media Ltd" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has an established Internet presence and owns several domain names which incorporate the word “casino” which are used by the Complainant to promote its gambling services in Finland.\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on January 14, 2020.; and the disputed domain name was registered on January 15, 2020.\r\nThere is no information available about the Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar to the Center in response to the request for verification of the registration details of the disputed domain names.\r\nEach of the disputed domain names have been registered availing of a privacy service to conceal the identity of the Respondent.", "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.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\nThe Complainant claims rights in the CASINO trademark established by its ownership of its portfolio of trade mark registrations described above and its use of the mark in its gambling business in Finland for which it has an established Internet presence, owning several domain names which incorporate the word “casino”.\r\nThe Complainant submits that it was founded in 1940 for sports betting and following the reform of the Finnish gaming system in 2017, it merged with two other entities and holds the exclusive right to operate casinos in Finland. The Complainant submits that the monopoly has been granted for public policy reasons and revenue is used for the benefit of Finish society generally.\r\nRequesting this Panel to note that the spellings of the words “kasino” and “casino” are used interchangeably in the Finish language, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names and are highly similar to its registered trademark CASINO and also, identical to the Complainant’s pre-existing domain names incorporating the words “casino” and “kasino” including and which were registered in 2016 and 2017 respectively.\r\nThe Complainant argues that each of the disputed domain names incorporate identically Complainants CASINO trademark with the addition of the element “Tampere”, which refers to the eponymous city, where the Complainant has recently opened its second casino in Finland which is promoted on its website at .\r\nThe Complainant submits that the name “Tampere” has no distinctive character it is simply a geographical location and adds that Internet users are therefore likely to assume that also the disputed domain names belong to the Complainant, particularly as the Complainant has the exclusive right, by statute, to establish a casino in that city, and it has been well publicised that in December 2021 the Complainant exercised that right and opened its second casino in Finland in Tampere.\r\nThe Complainant submits that since it is the only casino operator in Finland, consumers will automatically presume that the disputed domain names are either owned by the Complainant or have some other connection to it. According to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“the WIPO Overview”), section 1.7 it is stated that in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing (WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin).\r\nThe Complainant adds that according to the section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain names, the addition of other terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.\r\nThe Complainant next submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names arguing that it is no coincidence that the disputed domain names which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks were chosen and registered.\r\nThe Complainant submits that according to the searches conducted by the Complainant on the internet and in the trademark databases, the Respondent does not have any rights preceding those of the Complainant to the name “KASINO” or to the disputed domain names and . The disputed domain name was registered on January 14, 2020.; and the disputed domain name was registered on January 15, 2020, which the Complainant asserts was long after it established its rights in the CASINO mark including by its Finnish trademark registration no 238841 which was registered for lottery tickets in class 16 in 2005.\r\nTo the Complainant’ knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and its use of the disputed domain names is neither non-commercial nor fair use.\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant has not granted anyone any rights or license to use the name CASINO or its derivatives. The use and registration of the disputed domain names has not been authorized by the Complainant and they do not approve of the use and registration of the disputed domain names.\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by it in any way to use the trademark CASINO. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. On the contrary, the Respondent's website links the visitor to gambling sites that are in breach of Finnish law.\r\nReferring to screen captures of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve, which have been submitted in an annex to the Complaint and translated into the English language at the request of the Panel, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name resolves to a news page, with information unrelated to gaming, and appears to be just on hold.\r\nThe screen captures show that the disputed domain name resolves to a website which the Complainant alleges contains references and links to other gambling activities in violation of Finnish gaming legislation, relating to games are mainly operated and managed from Malta. For example, a title “Parhaat kasinot netissä”, which link leads to “Wheelz Kasino”. The Complainant explains that casino and gambling operations are strictly regulated in Finland and may only be carried out by the Complainant. The Complainant has recently (December 2021) opened the second casino in Finland, in the city of Tampere under the authority of Article 11 of the Government Decree 1414\/2016 which provides that “[the Complainant] may operate one gaming casino in the City of Helsinki and in one gaming casino in the City of Tampere.”\r\nThe Complainant next submits that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith, for profit and to prevent the Complainant from registering them.\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered in January 2020, whereas the first speculations about the opening of Finland's second casino in Tampere begun in the news in February-March 2015 as shown in the information provided by the Complainant in an annex to the Complaint.\r\nThe disputed domain name contains information and links to news about the Complainant opening the new Casino Tampere. Additionally, the website contains links such as “Parhaat Nettikasinot 2021” (“Best Online Casinos 2021”) to third party gaming, gambling, and betting services and companies and gambling websites.\r\nThe Complainant submits that all this information is likely to lead consumers to search and drift to the other gaming websites, which businesses are prohibited in Finland, since they are not carried by the Complainant and argues that the Respondent will obviously benefit from the Complainant’s business activities.\r\nThe Complainant adds that the website to which the domain name resolves provides a direct link to a paid online casino Wheelz and on these pages there is a link to the so-called “Affiliate program” (“or Kumppanuusohjelma” in Finnish). In practice, the “Affiliate program” means that the code on the website links to a specific account, which is the so-called “affiliate account” and if a visitor clicks through to an affiliated website and plays games on the site, the Respondent, as owner of the affiliate account at will receive a percentage of any revenue.\r\nBy Article 11 of the Finnish Lottery Act (23.11.2001 \/ 1047) stipulates that Veikkaus has the exclusive right to conduct gambling in Finland. According to Article 12 of the same Act, \"The company's task is to engage in gambling activities in such a way as to guarantee the legal security of participants in gambling, to prevent abuses and crimes and to prevent and reduce economic, social and health harm caused by gambling.\"\r\nComplainant submits that it has an obligation to gamblers and holds a responsibility for gambling in all its operations. In addition, section 14 b of the Act strictly regulates the marketing of gambling, which e.g. The National Police Board of Finland (“PoHa”) monitors. In the guidelines for the marketing of gambling issued by the PoHa on 3 June 2015 in section 3.2., it is expressly stated that the marketing of gambling is permitted only to the gambling associations mentioned in Article 11 of the Lotteries Act, and that it must be clear from the marketing that it is carried out by the gambling community.\r\nWhen visiting the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve, consumers may make the mistake of thinking that these websites are maintained by the Complainant itself or is at least financially supported by the Complainant.\r\nIn addition, consumers may easily think that the Finnish-language gaming website, which advertises for example that “SuomiKasino – The Best Games of Finland” has some connection to the Complainant’s well-regulated gambling activities.\r\nThe Complainant adds that the disputed domain names cause serious harm to the Complainant's tightly regulated business and even to the Finnish consumers.\r\nGiven the above facts and as there are no business relations between the Parties, the Complainant submits that it is evident that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.\r\nThe Complainant next argues that the disputed domain names were registered and are used in bad faith to attract Internet users to the website for commercial gain or that the domain was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names were registered with the intention to attract Internet users to the Respondents website, creating a likelihood of confusion with registered and well-known CASINO trademark and casino operations of the Complainant.\r\nThe Respondent has clearly been aware of the Complainant’s business and plans to open Casino to Tampere, as well as the Complainant’s existing domain names as above listed. This is evident from the use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent.\r\nThe Complainant submits that the intention of Respondent, the intention should be determined by an objective test as stated in the case Paule Ka v. Paula Korenek (WIPO Case No. D2003-0453): “The proper test in this Panel’s view, is whether the objective consequences or effect of the Respondent’s conduct is a free-ride on the Complainant’s goodwill, whether or not that was the primary (subjective) intent of the Respondent.”\r\nReferring to the fact that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names, which are each confusingly similar to its CASINO mark, and each references the Complainant’s new casino business in Tampere thereby causing confusion among Internet users, who are likely to be misled into believing that the websites associated with disputed domain names are owned or associated with the Complainant, it is contended that the Respondent is therefore using the disputed domain names in bad faith.\r\nThe Complainant concludes arguing that the Respondent's conduct also causes harm and inconvenience to the Complainant's strictly regulated business and the Respondent derives undue commercial and financial gain as a result of users visiting the website and adds that when considering the issues of bad faith registration and use, it should also to be noted that the Respondent has availed of a privacy service to hide its true identity.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nNo administratively compliant Response was received.", "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": [ "Mr James Jude Bridgeman" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-04-03 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has provided evidence in the form of trademark searches to show that it owns and has rights in a portfolio of trademarks which either consist of, or incorporate the mark CASINO, and in particular relies on its rights in Finnish registered trademark CASINO, registered on September 27, 2005 for goods in class 16.", "decision_domains": { "KASINOTAMPERE.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "KASINOTAMPERE.INFO": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }