The Complainant, Entain Operations Ltd, is the subsidiary of an international sports-betting and gaming group, operating both online and in the retail sector. The Complainant’s parent, Entain plc, owns a comprehensive portfolio of established brands, including the sports brands BWIN, CORAL, CRYSTALBET, EUROBET, LADBROKES, NEDS INTERNATIONAL, and SPORTINGBET; and the games brands CASINO CLUB, FOXY BINGO, GALA, GIOCO GITITALE, PARTYPOKER and PARTYCASINO. For the financial year ending 31 December 2021, the parent’s underlying operating profit for the online gaming business was £484 million. The parent has traded on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) of the London Stock Exchange since 24 May 2010 and, as of 1 February 2024, has a market capitalisation of £6.1 billion. The United Kingdom is the parent’s core market and accounts for a significant portion of sales, with other key markets being the European Union and Australia.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that its SPORTINGBET brand is widely known, has accrued significant reputation, and has built up a vast amount of goodwill in relation to a wide range of goods and services. Endorsements and promotional activity associated with the Complainant’s brand and trade marks include, notably, the sponsorship of football clubs in the UK and EU, with the brand and trade marks being featured on the official matchday kit of English Premier League club Wolverhampton Wanderers FC between 2009-2013, of English Championship club Leeds United FC between 2011-2014, and Romanian SuperLiga’s most successful club Steaua Bucuresti between 2009-2011. <\/p>\n
Aside from the Complainant’s brand and trade marks being featured on football stadiums and player’s matchday shirts, it is also active online, reaching a wide network of users on a global scale. The Complainant’s official website and official app facilitate betting services during highly popular football events, including the English Premier League, amassing substantial user traffic. On average, the Complainant’s official website generates user traffic of over 12 million visitors a month, from various territories across the globe. The Complainant’s social media accounts for the brand SPORTINGBET on the platforms Instagram, Facebook and X have attracts significant numbers of followers.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <sporitngbet.com> was registered on 13 September 2014. As at the date of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a domain hosting an online game.<\/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": "
The Complainant contends that all three elements of the UDRP have been fulfilled and it therefore requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/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 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 notes that, as at the date of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a domain hosting an online game, but that the Complainant has adduced evidence showing that, as at the time of the amended complaint, the disputed domain name redirected instead to the domain <expressvpn.com>; and that the disputed domain name had previously been linked to a range of other domains which promoted a sports gaming app, or offerings relating to the goods and services of the Complainant, such as gambling, games entertainment or e-sports.<\/p>\n
It has been commonly accepted by a substantial number of UDRP decisions that panels may perform limited independent factual research into matters of public record in assessing the merits of a case, based on the wide general powers set out in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules. Such research may include, in particular, visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain information about a respondent’s use of the disputed domain name (see, for example, WIPO Overview 3.0 at paragraph 4.8). The Panel is therefore satisfied that it can take into account the change of website to which the disputed domain name is now linked.<\/p>\n
The Panel has also considered whether it may be necessary to invite the parties to make further submissions on the new website to which the disputed domain name now forwards. The Panel has however taken the view that doing so in circumstances where, both at the time of the (amended) complaint and at the time of the decision, the disputed domain name has been forwarding to a succession of different third party websites, all of which constitute (for the reasons given below) use of the disputed domain name without legitimate rights or interest, for commercial gain, or taking unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill acquired by the Complainant’s trade marks, would not be necessary or appropriate because it would undermine the UDRP process insofar as a respondent would simply have to change the redirection at different stages during the administrative proceeding to prevent a timely and effective decision from being reached. The Panel therefore considered it appropriate to proceed to a decision without inviting further party submissions.<\/p>\n
The Panel is also satisfied that all other 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": [ "Gregor Kleinknecht LLM MCIArb" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-03-17 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns an extensive portfolio of some two dozen trade marks consisting of or incorporating the name SPORTINGBET, including the UK national word trade mark SPORTINGBET, registration number UK00002642443, first registered on 15 November 2012 in international classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42; and the Brazilian national combined trade mark SPORTINGBET, registration number 901198730, first registered on 12 July 2011 in international class 41. At least the aforementioned trade mark registrations of the Complainant predate the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant also owns domain names which consist of or incorporate the name SPORTINGBET, including <sportingbet.com>, first registered on 4 September 1997, and actively used since 20 March 2013, which is connected to the Complainant's official website through which it informs Internet users and customers about its products and services.<\/p>\n
In addition to its official website, the Complainant also operates an official sports betting app which is made available on mainstream app platforms like Apple and Google Play. The branding of the official app prominently incorporates the Complainant’s trade marks.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "sporitngbet.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }