The Complainant is a state-owned company operating in Finland in the field of betting and lottery related services since 1940. In 2017, previous three operators Fintoto (operating toto horse racing games), RAY (casino) and Veikkaus (betting and lottery) merged into a single gambling, betting and game of chance company Veikkaus Oy (the Complainant) owned by the Finnish State. Since the betting and gambling services are strictly regulated in Finland, the Complainant is the only operator of such services having a legal monopoly right under the Lottery Law. The Complainant is the only company that is entitled to legally offer gambling, betting and lottery in Finland and it is under strict monitoring and control.
The Complainant holds a trademark registration for “PITKÄVETO” dating back to 2020 in Finland, a domain name incorporating “PITKÄVETO” trademark as <pitkäveto.fi> since 2005 and a domain name incorporating “PITKAVETO” trademark as <pitkaveto.fi> since 2003.
On January 12, 2019; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <pitkavetovihjeet.com>. The disputed domain name is in use for providing betting tips, advertising betting and gambling websites, as well as directing the users to such websites.<\/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": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <pitkavetovihjeet.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark “PITKÄVETO<\/span>”, as it comprises of the trademark and the additional Finnish word “VIHJEET” meaning tips in English, which has no distinctive character and is a generic term directly linked to betting services of the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Complainant also refers to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition (“the Overview”) sections 1.1.3 and 1.3 stating that the fact that a Respondent is shown to have been targeting the Complainant’s mark (e.g., based on the manner in which the related website is used) may support the Complainant’s assertion that its mark has achieved significance as a source identifier. Also, the Complainant asserts that it is also the owner of similar domains consisting of “PITKÄVETO<\/span>” and “PITKAVETO”, therefore, consumers will presume that the disputed domain name <pitkavetovihjeet.com> is also owned by the Complainant or it has some other close connection to it. <\/span><\/p>\n It is claimed that the Complainant’s trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name and adding other verbal elements will not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Consequently, the disputed domain name is claimed to be confusingly similar and cause likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and domain names.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and it is not related or affiliated in any way with the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Complainant further states that betting services in Finland are strictly regulated and may only be provided by the Complainant according to Finnish law. It was claimed that the Respondent's website providing links to Finnish gambling sites that are in breach of Finnish law cannot be legitimate and registering the disputed domain name was only for profit and to prevent the Complainant from registering the domain name. The Complainant also contends that the consumers are likely to consider that all the games are provided by the Complainant, as no other company is authorized to provide them in Finland and to Finnish consumers.<\/p>\n The Complainant claims that the Respondent does not have any rights preceding those of the Complainant to the name “PITKÄVETO” or on the name “PITKAVETOVIHJEET”. In addition to using the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name, the Respondent is claimed to have used it also on the website, which proves that the Respondent knows the Complainant and its business and brands very well.<\/p>\n The Complainant submits that the Respondent will benefit from the Complainant’s trademarks as they attract users of the Complainant’s games because the Respondent seeks commercial benefit from directing the consumers to such Respondent's websites will result in monetary compensation under affiliate marketing scheme. This affiliate marketing scheme was explained by the Complainant as the affiliated web page receiving profit for each player who find the games through such domain name\/website. Since the website of the disputed domain name provides direct links to the paid online casinos and if a person creates an account for and plays games on the site, the owner of the disputed domain name will receive provision of any revenue or similar monetary compensation. The Complainant states that this is the only reason why the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and established a website “to promote” the Complainant’s products.<\/p>\n The Complainant asserted that there is a substantial risk that the websites linked in the content of the disputed domain name are mistaken by the consumers for legal providers of gambling services, however, according to the Finnish Lottery Act, no one other than the Complainant can legally provide betting or gambling services in Finland. It is further stated that the websites appear as if they were maintained by or on behalf of the Complainant or that the pages are released with consent or in cooperation with the Complainant, since they are in Finnish language. The disputed domain name is claimed to be causing serious harm to the Complainant’s strongly regulated business and to the Finnish consumers without legitimate reason.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n The Complainant claims that the use and registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent has been done with the intention to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with registered and well-known “PITKÄVETO” trademark and betting services of the Complainant, the Respondent's conduct is not compliant with the law, and it also causes harm and inconvenience to the Complainant's strictly regulated business. The Complainant states that the Respondent derives undue commercial profit and financial gain because of users visiting the website and finding themselves to web pages that could not be legally marketed to Finnish consumers.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent has clearly been aware of the Complainant’s business and the Respondent undeniably knew the identity and business of the Complainant and had intent to target its rights for commercial purposes before it registered the disputed domain name, which is evident from the use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n It was claimed by the Complainant that the intention should be determined by an objective test as stated in the WIPO Case No. D2003-0453, Paule Ka v. Paula Korenek, <\/em>and that even if it was not the Respondent’s original intention to the cause harm to the Complainant, the Complainant's trademark and business, consequences of the Respondent’s actions have resulted in doing so and have prevented Complainant from reflecting their trademark in a corresponding domain name.<\/p>\n On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name <pitkavetovihjeet.com> in bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n The Respondent claimed that the websites provided in the content of the disputed domain name are not illegal, and that Finns can gamble on other sites than the Complainant’s, which would not be illegal. The Respondent further claims that in Finland, it is not illegal to maintain a website that advertises foreign casinos. Furthermore, it is stated that it should also be considered that the Respondent’s website has a domain name ending in “.com” and the server is located abroad.<\/p>\n The Respondent also states that the Finnish National Police Board has contacted them numerous times, about the disputed domain name where they advertised gambling sites, and that they have found it legal and has seen no cause to intervene.<\/p>\n It is claimed that the disputed domain name can in no way be confused with the Complainant’s trademark, and that the Respondent makes no reference to the Complainant at any point. Also, it was stated that the Respondent does not in any way give the impression or attempt to mislead anyone about its site being owned by the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Respondent contends that it has the right to operate on the website and provide tips to gamblers. The Respondent also states that the website has been in its current form and has been offering tips for 2.5 years already and it is the owner of the disputed domain name for almost four years. Besides, a lot of time and money has been spent on the site.<\/p>\n It was asserted that the disputed domain name was registered in good faith to offer betting services and before registering the domain name, the Respondent checked the trademark registers, and the Complainant did not have a valid trademark at that time.<\/p>\n The Respondent does not make further comments on the content of the website or its legality because it is of the opinion that since both parties are from Finland, such matters should be resolved in the Finnish Court. It is stated that the only thing to deal with in this particular issue is whether the domain name infringes the Complainant’s trademark, and it does not. The Respondent refers to the WIPO UPDR Case No. D2000-0836.<\/p>\n Lastly, the Respondent asserted its opinion as Finnish trademarks should not extend to “.com” domains, and if it ends up losing the disputed domain name, it will open Pandora's box. As a result, it was stated that the trademark holders in quite small countries could claim a “.com” domain name, even if it does not fully correspond to the trademark.<\/p>",
"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>\n The Complainant requested to submit a response to the Respondent’s response. The Panel concluded that the existing contentions are sufficient to grant a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Mrs Selma Ünlü"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-23 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the Finnish trademark \"PITKÄVETO\" no. 276534 registered since January 7, 2020. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain names <pitkaveto.fi> registered on September 1, 2003 and <pitkäveto.fi> registered on September 1, 2005.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"pitkavetovihjeet.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}