{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105694", "time_of_filling": "2023-08-11 09:19:46", "domain_names": [ "bwin-pt.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Entain Operations Limited" ], "complainant_representative": "Mr Kostas Retzopoulos (Stobbs IP)", "respondent": [ " Nikolas  Ioannis  Thrasyvoulou" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "", "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": "

The Complainant is an international sports-betting and gaming group, operating both online and in the retail sector, employs a workforce of over 24,000 individuals in 20 offices across 5 continents and owns a comprehensive portfolio of established brands including BWIN and domain name <bwin.com> registered on August 22, 2005.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Complainant has traded on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) of the London Stock Exchange (LSE) since May 24, 2010 and as of August 7, 2023 has a market capitalisation value (the market value of a company’s outstanding shares) of £8.92 billion. For the relevant financial year ending 31 December 2022, the Complainant’s underlying operating profit for the online gaming business was £541.8 million. It is clear from this that the Complainant’s brand has been a significant commercial presence for a long period of time and continues to have the same, strong presence today.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Complainant’s BWIN brand has a significant reputation and has built up a vast amount of goodwill in the sign in the UK in relation to a wide range of goods and services. The Complainant received significant endorsement for their BWIN brand on social media.<\/div>\n

1) Provided the Complainant has a registered trademark at the time of commencing proceedings, the panellist will satisfy the threshold of holding ‘rights’, for the purpose of Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(i) - WIPO Overview 3.0, Paragraph 1.1.2. The Complainant further relies on prior domain dispute decisions, where Panels have found the Complainant has rights in the BWIN brand.<\/p>\n

\n

The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the trade mark “BWIN” in its entirety, with the addition of a hyphen and ‘pt’. The inclusion of the term “pt” alongside the BWIN trade mark does nothing to alter the impression in the eyes of the average internet user. Prior panelists have reached the same conclusions regarding the addition of non-distinctive terms in paragraph 4(a)(i). A recent example can be seen in the case between Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG Fundacion Comercio Electronico. CAC Case No. 103973 <boehringeringelheimequinerebate.com>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
The use of ‘BWIN’ in conjunction with ‘-PT’ is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. Connotations associated with BWIN and the disputed domain name create the overall impression that the goods and services offered under both terms would likely relate to the BWIN brand in Portugal to be online betting or bingo services. Ehen an internet user searches ‘BWIN pt’ or ‘BWIN in Portugal’, the Complainant’s business and branding appear in all of the searches. This shows the scale of the Complainant’s reputation and business in the sports betting gambling market. It further shows that ‘Bwin-pt’ is likely to be associated with the Complainant’s brand.<\/div>\n

2) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s BWIN trade mark, or at the very least, confusingly similar. The Complainant further submits that the gTLD suffix (.com), is an integral technical part of the disputed domain name, may be disregarded in the determination of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 name other than to take advantage of the Complainant’s established rights and notoriety. The disputed domain name was registered on January 12, 2023. By this point, the Complainant already had extensive rights in the BWIN brand dating back over fifteen years ago.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name resolved to a live sports-betting related site until at least March 12, 2023 and is still registered by the Respondent. Specifically, the Respondent has used content that imitates the Complainant’s genuine website. In doing so, the Respondent has sought to attract unsuspecting consumers to engage in online betting services under the guise of being an official BWIN domain. Use of the BWIN brand to imitate the Complainant’s genuine website cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

Nothing from the content of the disputed domain name domain name suggests that the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The disputed domain name is being used to exploit and capitalise on the success and recognisability of the distinctive BWIN trade mark, in addition to the advertisement of services related to online gambling and sports betting.

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
3) <\/span>The disputed domain name has been registered and has been used in bad faith The BWIN trade mark, as well as the trading and commercial activities of the business, significantly pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name. The BWIN brand at the date of the registration of the disputed domain name undoubtedly had widespread recognition, supported by social media activity, endorsements, collaborations, and partnerships. Indeed, a simple check on any of the most used Internet search engines would have revealed the Complainant’s BWIN brand and business.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

The Complainant acquired the BWIN trade mark in the European Union and registered under its subsidiary entity on December 10, 2009 in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42, covering computer software; advertising; financial and monetary services related to sports betting and gaming; message sending via the internet in connection with sports betting and gaming; and entertainment in the field of sports betting and gaming, among other things. The Complainant submits the disputed domain name until recently operated a website promoting online gambling and betting activities. The website at the disputed domain name uses the Complainant’s BWIN trade mark. Upon accessing the website, the disputed domain name, the user was presented with promotional offers inferring an authorisation provided on behalf of the Complainant and its subsidiaries, when no such authorisation has been provided: BONUS DE BOA-VINDAS BWIN (Translation: WELCOME BONUS BWIN) -FROM €5 AND A 1ST RISK FREE BET UP TO €50.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
The intention of the Respondent was to divert consumers (intended for the Complainant) to the Respondent’s website. The content at the disputed domain name was setup with the intention to harvest personal and\/or financial information from the Complainant’s customers and gain access to accounts held with the Complainant and its subsidiaries. The behaviour of the Respondent is commonly known as “phishing”.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The intention of the Respondent was therefore to attract users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website, constituting bad faith. The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct through the registration of the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in disputed domain names. In view of the distinctive nature of the BWIN trade mark, and the colossal scope of the Complainant’s business, there is no way in which the Respondent could use the disputed domain name in question without falling foul of Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.<\/div>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. P<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is 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": [ "Petr Hostaš" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-09-18 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of numerous BWIN trademarks, including: <\/div>\n
    \n
  • International word trademark No 886220, registered on February 3, 2006; or<\/li>\n
  • International figurative trademark No 896530, registered on March 16, 2006.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
    The Complainant also owns domain name <bwin.com> registered on August 22, 2005.<\/div>\n
    The disputed domain name <bwin-pt.com> was registered on January 12, 2023.<\/div>", "decision_domains": { "bwin-pt.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }