The Complainant is a lottery, a game of chance and betting service provider operating in Finland. It was founded in 1940 for sports betting in Finland and currently has a monopoly position as regards betting and game of chance services in Finland.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark \"PITKÄVETO\" (see above section \"Identification of rights” for details) and of the domain names <pitkaveto.fi> and <pitkäveto.fi>.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on January 25, 2021. It resolves to a website which contains betting tips from experts for different sports, as well as links to third parties betting 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 Complainant clarifies that “Pitkavetovihjeet” means “long-betting tips” in English. The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name relates to one of its main businesses, namely, betting services. The Complainant observes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website where all the information is in Finnish and is related to the Complainant’s services, namely betting and games of chance, and to third party gambling services. The Complainant argues that, given that the above-mentioned website is in Finnish language, it is aimed at the Finnish consumers. The Complainant submits that the Respondent gets financial benefits from the disputed domain name because it is used as a part of affiliate marketing scheme. The Complainant underlines that it has provided betting services under the \"PITKÄVETO\" brand since 1993 and the registration of the \"PITKÄVETO\" trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant clarifies that “Vihjeet” is a generic term, and refers to tips. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s prior \"PITKÄVETO\" trademark because the above-mentioned trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, and the addition of the generic word \"Vihjeet\" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant points out that the term “Vihjeet” is directly linked to betting services. The Complainant argues that it is likely that Internet users assume that the disputed domain name belongs or has some other close connection to the Complainant, as the latter is the only official betting service provider in Finland and is also the owner of similar domain names. The Complainant states that the Respondent does not have any rights to the name “PITKÄVETO”, to the wording “PITKAVETOVIHJEET” or to the disputed domain name. The Complainant declares that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by it to use the trademark \"PITKÄVETO\". The Complainant clarifies that it does not have any business relation with the Respondent. The Complainant considers that the Respondent's website provides links to gambling websites that are in breach of Finnish law. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, for obtaining a profit and for preventing the Complainant from registering it. The Complainant stresses that the Respondent seeks commercial benefit from directing Internet users to gambling webpages under an affiliate marketing scheme. The Complainant observes that, given that it is the only official betting service provider in Finland, the sole purpose of a third party to register the disputed domain name would be to exploit its reputation and to take financial advantages from its trademarks. The Complainant considers that, in the light of the Finnish rules on gambling services, the Respondent's activities related to the disputed domain name cause a harm to the Complainant's business and to the Finnish consumers. The Complainant argues 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 the Complainant's trademarks.
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Respondent considers that the disputed domain name cannot be considered identical or confusingly similar to a trademark that is not distinctive enough. The Respondent adds that the term \"Pitkäveto\" is a widely recognized Finnish translation of \"fixed odds betting\". The Respondent takes the view that even the Complainant has made that clear in the text of some English versions of the Complainant's website. The Respondent explains that its website offers betting tips (i.e. predictions) for the fixed odds betting part of the whole betting field. The Respondent states that the disputed domain name has not been registered in bad faith. The Respondent submits that the disputed domain name was chosen due to the fact that \"Pitkävetovihjeet\" is one major keyword in search engines and widely recognized as regards fixed odds betting predictions and not as a trademark of the Complainant. The Respondent contends that the term is not mixed with the \"Pitkäveto\" brand. The Respondent clarifies that it is not a Complainant's competitor and that the website does not offer gambling or lottery services in Finland because the visitors cannot gamble on its website. The Respondent claims that it introduces betting sites located in Europe and that it publishes its betting predictions with the highest odds of the fixed odds betting market. The Complainant alleges that it uses reliable service providers only. <\/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
Similarly, to another case where the Complainant was involved (CAC case No. CAC-UDRP-104551), also in this case the Panel is unable to decide whether the content of the Respondent's website in its concrete form complies with Finnish law or not. Also, in the opinion of the Panel, this question must be clarified in proceedings before the national courts or the national competent authorities and does not relate to the question of the permissibility of the registration and use of the disputed domain name per se. Therefore, the Panel considers that that the subject matter of this specific issue is beyond the scope of the Policy.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Michele Antonini" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-12-17 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the registrant of the Finnish trademark registration No. 276534 “PITKÄVETO”, registered on January 7, 2020, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28 and 41.<\/p>\n<\/div>", "decision_domains": { "pitkavetovihjeet.org": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }