<\/p>\n
The Complainant concluded a domain name transfer contract on May 14, 2021 including the domain name “soccervista.com” and including the mark \"SoccerVista”. The website offered content on sports and betting information and predicitions. The content of the website consisting of code, graphic and functionality was not part of the deal between the seller and the Complainant as the Complainant planned to build its own website. The domain name was temporarily redirected to another domain. Currently, the Complainant is offering sports and betting information on “soccervista.com”.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name “newsoccervista.com” has been registered with the Respondent on May 31, 2021. The Respondent started using the domain name to present content including sport bet predictions, identical to the content that was previously available on website “soccervista.com”. <\/p>\n
The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the unregistered trademark “SoccerVista”. “SoccerVista” is considered a well-known and market-established sports brand. The Respondent has been using the disputed domain name immediately after registration. The Complainant is under the impression that the registration was linked to the purchase of the trademark by the Complainant. The disputed domain name is only accompanied by the prefix “new” and therefore refers to something existing rather than distinguishes two domain names. In addition, the header of the Respondent's website as well as the logo present a direct reference to “SoccerVista”.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, since the Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent wants to present its domain name as a successor of “SoccerVista” and tries to establish a connection to this mark. The Respondent's offer is functionally equivalent to that of the Complainant and therefore operates in direct competition on the relevant market. According to the Complainant, the Respondent bought the website content from the previous seller in bad faith and with the goal to operate the content as a new version of the well-known mark “SoccerVista”. In addition, the Respondent has started to redirect visitors of its website “www.newsoccervista.com” to a new domain operating under the name “SoccerVital”, which the Complainant considers to be an implicit acknowledgement regarding the aforementioned violations.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Respondent claims that the Complainant does not meet the requirements of the UDRP, because “SoccerVista” is neither a trademark nor a service mark. The Respondent has the right to register any name including the words “soccer” and “vista”, since they are common names. Moreover, the estimated value of “SoccerVista” is only about 9.000 USD.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Further, the domain name has not been registered and is not being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name was only registered and used after the Complainant closed the prognostic service and the domain was redirected to the website “betexplorer.com” until April 2023. In the Respondent’s opinion, the Complainant started using the domain name again in order to benefit from the number of users of the disputed domain name.<\/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 name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": null, "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).<\/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 name (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 name has been registered and is 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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Dominik Eickemeier" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-22 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of the domain name “SoccerVista.com”, which it acquired in 2021 for a significant amount. Between 2019 and 2021 the mark \"SoccerVista\" was used to offer sports betting services and information. The website of \"SoccerVista\" had over 35 million users and 3,3 billion pageviews.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that \"SoccerVista\" is an unregistered well known trademark.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "www.newsoccervista.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }