{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105914", "time_of_filling": "2023-10-26 10:08:11", "domain_names": [ "veikkauksen.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Veikkaus Oy" ], "complainant_representative": "Paula Sailas Licensed Legal Counsel, European Trademark and Design Attorney (Berggren Oy)", "respondent": [ "Petri Ikonen (Petri Ikonen)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A. Complainant<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's statements of fact can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

The Complainant is a Finnish gaming company which is owned entirely by the Finnish State. The Finnish gaming system was reformed in 2017, resulting in the merge of the previous three operators Fintoto (horse racing games), RAY (casino), and Veikkaus (betting and lottery). The Complainant, whose purpose is to operate games responsibly and mitigating the possible risks involved therefrom, holds the exclusive right to operate all the gambling games that are offered in Finland.<\/p>\n

Approximately 40 per cent of adult Finns play VEIKKAUS games and use their betting services weekly, and more than 80 per cent have played VEIKKAUS games at least once in their lives. <\/p>\n

In addition to the trade mark set out in the above section 'Identification Of Rights', and many more in its portfolio, the Complainant owns numerous domain names containing the trade mark VEIKKAUS, most notably <veikkaus.com> (registered on 20 December 1996).<\/p>\n

B. Respondent<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, the result of which being that the Complainant's factual allegations are uncontested.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <veikkauksen.com> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A. Complainant<\/strong>'s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

I. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name incorporates the trade mark VEIKKAUS in its entirety, and that 'veikkauksen' is the genitive form of the word 'veikkaus' in Finnish language. Consequently, Internet users are likely to assume that the disputed domain name belongs to the Complainant, which is the only official betting service provider in Finland.<\/p>\n

In order to further support this UDRP Policy ground, the Complainant alludes to the WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, paragraph 1.7 ('the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0'), according to which UDRP decisions have held domain names to be confusingly similar if the entirety of a trade mark, or at least a dominant part of it, is recognisable in the domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.<\/p>\n

II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the Respondent does not hold any rights preceding those of the Complainant to the name 'Veikkaus' nor does the Respondent have prior rights to 'veikkauksen' or to the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorised by, the Complainant to use the trade mark VEIKKAUS. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business relationship with, the Respondent.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further states that the Respondent's website provides links to third party gambling websites, in breach of Finnish law, and that Internet users are likely to be misled into thinking that those third-party websites are affiliated with the Complainant.<\/p>\n

In view of the above, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name.<\/p>\n

III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with the sole purpose of targeting the Complainant's trade mark VEIKKAUS, and to derive profit from the likely Internet consumer confusion between the Respondent's website and the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further avers that the Respondent is trading on the Complainant's goodwill and obtaining commercial gain by marketing Finnish online casinos on the Respondent's website, in violation of Finnish law.<\/p>\n

The Complainant reiterates that it is the only company entitled to legally offer gambling, betting and lottery services in Finland, and that the Complainant is under strict monitoring and control. In view of this, there is a substantial risk that Internet consumers will be mistaken by the third-party websites advertised on the Respondent’s website and, quite possibly, led to believe that they were maintained by, or on behalf of, the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Complainant therefore claims that the Respondent has intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the Respondent's website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>\n

B. Respondent<\/strong>'s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, the result of which being that the Complainant’s submissions are uncontested.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

The Panel makes no ruling on this UDRP Policy ground for the reasons set forth in section 'Principal Reasons for the Decision' further below.<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP 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": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Gustavo Moser", "Dominik Eickemeier", "Bart Van Besien" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-12-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade mark, amongst others:<\/p>\n