{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106235", "time_of_filling": "2024-02-08 09:29:15", "domain_names": [ "sportingbet-br.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Entain Operations, Ltd." ], "complainant_representative": "Stobbs IP (Stobbs IP)", "respondent": [ "Adam Igoss" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a subsidiary of international sports betting and gaming group Entain plc which has traded on the London Stock exchange since 2010. The Entain plc group had a market value in February 2024 of £6.1 billion and it operates in the United Kingdom, the European Union and Australia. The Complainant's domain name <sportingbet.com> resolves to the official Sportingbet website on which customers may make bets on a wide range of sporting fixtures.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on September 8, 2022 by the Toronto based Respondent. It resolves to a website which features the SPORTINGBET trade mark and a logo that incorporates the SPORTINGBET mark in a near identical font and red and blue colour scheme to that featured in the Complainant’s logo. The website appears to be targeted at Brazilian users and is in the Portuguese language and offers its customers the opportunity to make online bets on sporting fixtures.<\/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": "

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Complainant's Contentions<\/em><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s SPORTINGBET trade mark in its entirety and is therefore confusingly similar to the disputed domain name. The inclusion of a hyphen and the term “br”, which the Complainant submits is an abbreviation for Brazil, does not prevent a likelihood of confusion according to the Complainant.  <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant says that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and has not been authorised or licensed by the Complainant to use and register its trade mark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the trade mark or any similar sign and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant says that the Respondent has not demonstrated use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. <\/p>\n

It says that the disputed domain name resolves to an active website offering services relating to online sports betting and gaming under a highly similar sign to the Complainant’s SPORTINGBET mark and logo and that the website contains statements in Portuguese which infer affiliation with the Complainant’s SPORTINGBET business, such as “Sportingbet – Apostas Esportivas Online no Brasil [Sportingbet - Online Sports Betting in Brazil]”. <\/em>The website invites users to collect introductory offers and to register to interact with the websites services and redirects users to an unaffiliated website, https:\/\/1wxfar.top\/<\/a> with unconfirmed regulatory authorisation to operate gambling services. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the website at the disputed domain name overlaps with its core service offering and uses a logo that it very similar to its red and blue SPORTINGBET logo and that the Respondent more than likely set up the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and to drive traffic to its website. The Complainant says that it cannot be inferred that the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial, or fair use of the disputed domain name in circumstances that he is seeking to create an impression of association with the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

In terms of bad faith, the Complainant says that the trading and commercial activities of its group’s business significantly pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name on September 8, 2022. It says that its Sportingbet business is widely recognised as a result of worldwide news commentary, social media activity and publicised endorsements and that an online search by the Respondent prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, would have revealed the Complainant’s mark and business. In summary it says that there is no plausible reason that the Respondent could have had for registering the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. It says that the Complainant registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge and sought to target the Respondent’s mark and that the elements of paragraph 4(b) (iv) are fulfilled.<\/p>\n

In addition, the Complainant says that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor in terms of paragraph 4(b) (iii) of the Policy because it was registered with the sole purpose of creating an association with the Complainant which is objectively disruptive to the Complainant’s business. <\/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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mr Alistair Payne" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-03-26 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns various trade mark registrations for SPORTINGBET including UK word mark registration 00002642443 registered on March 29, 2013 and Brazilian combined logo and word mark Registration 901198730 registered on July 12, 2011. It also owns numerous domain name registrations that incorporate its SPORTINGBET mark including <sportingbet.com> which was registered on September 4, 1997.  
<\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "sportingbet-br.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }