{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106451", "time_of_filling": "2024-04-22 09:21:52", "domain_names": [ "bwin.tokyo", "bwinasia.tokyo", "bwin-asia.tokyo", "ladbrokes.tokyo" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Entain Operations, Ltd. " ], "complainant_representative": "Stobbs IP (Stobbs IP)", "respondent": [ "Chai Rui Chen" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "
\n
\n
\n
\n

The Complainant, Entain Plc, is an international sports-betting and gaming group, operating both online and in the retail sector. Entain employs a workforce of over 24,000 individuals in 20 offices across 5 continents. Entain owns a comprehensive portfolio of established brands; Sports Brands include bwin, Coral, Crystalbet, Eurobet, Ladbrokes, Neds International and Sportingbet; and Games Brands include CasinoClub, Foxy Bingo, Gala, Gioco Digitale, partypoker and PartyCasino. In December 2020, Entain plc rebranded from GVC Holdings plc.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant was incorporated in Luxembourg in 2004 as Gaming VC Holdings S.A. in Luxembourg. The First Complainant re-domiciled to the Isle of Man on 5 January 2010 then formally changing its name from GVC Holdings plc to Entain plc on 9 December 2020 (Company No. 004685V).<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

The Complainant has traded on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) of the London Stock Exchange (LSE) since 24 May 2010 and as of 20 October 2021, has a market capitalisation value (the market value of a company’s outstanding shares) of £12.7 billion.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant is the parent company of Entain Operations Limited with the registered office Suite 6, Atlantic Suites, Europort Avenue, Gibraltar, and owns extensive rights in the figurative and word marks associated with BWIN and LADBROKES including, but not limited to, the trade mark registrations. This very clearly demonstrates the Complainant has rights in accordance with the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the \"Rules\"), (3)(b) (viii).<\/p>\n

For the relevant financial year ending 31 December 2021, the Complainant’s underlying operating profit for the online gaming business was £484 million. It is clear from this that the Complainant’s brand has been a significant commercial presence for a long period of time and continues to have the same, strong presence today.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant would have been aware of the registration of the following domain names:<\/p>\n

<bwin.tokyo> registered on August 25, 2023<\/p>\n

<bwinasia.tokyo> registered on August 25, 2023<\/p>\n

<bwin-asia.tokyo> registered on August 25, 2023<\/p>\n

<ladbrokes.tokyo> registered on August 26, 2023<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>", "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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domains names should be transferred to it. The Complainant makes a number of legal arguments and also supplies a set of annexes providing evidence of its activities and of the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed. It ought to be indicated that the Centre sent of the complaint but nor the advice of delivery thereof was returned to the Czech Arbitration Court. The notice of the Commencement of the administrative proceeding was therefore only sent by e-mail. Yet, the e-mail notice sent to <postmaster@bwin.tokyo>, <postmaster@bwinasia.tokyo>, <postmaster@bwin-asia.tokyo> and <postmaster@ladbrokes.tokyo> was returned back undelivered as the e-mail address had permanent fatal errors. The e-mail notice was also sent to <yiingyue602@gmail.com>, but the CAC never received any proof of delivery or notification of undelivery. No further e-mail address could be found on the disputed sites.<\/p>\n

The Respondent never accessed the online platform.<\/span><\/p>", "rights": "

Despite the clerical error in the name of the Complainant mentioned in the \"factual and legal backgrounds\" of the Complaint, the Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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>\n

Yet, this is convincing the Panel to the extent that the international registration BWIN is concerned. Indeed, the Complainant did not to the satisfaction of the Panel show that he was entitled to act on behalf of company Entain Marketing (UK) Limited, owner of the UK registration LADBROKES. The Panel relied on WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (3rd Edition) and more specifically point 1.4.1 \"A trademark owner’s affiliate such as a subsidiary of a parent or of a holding company, or an exclusive trademark licensee, is considered to have rights in a trademark under the UDRP for purposes of standing to file a complaint\". The Complainant is not, or it has not demonstrated that he is, a trademark owner’s affiliate as defined.<\/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 names reproducing the sign BWIN (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 names, reproducing the sign BWIN, have been registered and are 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": "Partially Accepted\/Partially Rejected", "panelists": [ "David-Irving Tayer" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-05-26 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

\n
\n
\n
\n

The Complainant, Entain Operations Ltd (clerical error from the Complainant mentioning the parent company Entain Plc), has provided evidence of ownership of the following trademark:<\/p>\n

International trademark registration BWIN n° 886220 filed on February 3, 2006 duly renewed and claiming goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 and covering amongst others Australia, USA, Hungary, Russia, Japan, Benelux, Switzerland, Cyprus, France, UK...<\/p>\n

The Complainant relied also on the following trademarks standing in the name of Entain Marketing (UK) Limited:<\/p>\n

UK trademark registration LADBORKES n° 0650225 filed October 8, 2021 and claiming goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>", "decision_domains": { "bwin.tokyo": "TRANSFERRED", "bwinasia.tokyo": "TRANSFERRED", "bwin-asia.tokyo": "TRANSFERRED", "ladbrokes.tokyo": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }