{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106874",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-09-25 09:25:21",
    "domain_names": [
        "melbet-eg.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Batnesto Ltd"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Karel Sindelka (Sindelka & Lachmannová advokáti s.r.o.)",
    "respondent": [
        "Askar Rubas"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant alleges that it is a company registered in Cyprus and the holder of the &lt;melbet.com&gt; domain name. The website at the domain name &lt;melbet.com&gt; is operated by a third party &ndash; &ldquo;Pelican Entertainment&rdquo; B.V. with the Complainant&rsquo;s permission.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant claims that the &ldquo;Melbet&rdquo; online gaming and casino platform has been operated since 2012 and the Complainant provides screenshots of prior use of the &ldquo;Melbet&rdquo; platform (&ldquo;Platform&rdquo;).<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that the Platform has over 400,000 daily users worldwide and it includes over 1,000 daily events. Users can bet on a variety of popular sports, including,but not limited to football, tennis, basketball, volleyball, ice hockey, golf and boxing.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant provides information about the Platform from various sources (such as description and users&rsquo; reviews) and states that the &ldquo;Melbet&rdquo; betting application is available on &ldquo;AppStore&rdquo; and for &ldquo;Android&rdquo;.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant provides evidence of designs registration in the EU for the website layout and copyright registrations for the website layout in the UK issued by an entity named &ldquo;Copyright House&rdquo;.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to trademark registrations referred to above the Complainant also alleges common law trademark rights in respect of the &ldquo;Melbet&rdquo; mark (both word and figurative).<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant&rsquo;s common law trademark rights arguments are based on the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Under sec. 1.1.1 of &ldquo;WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition&rdquo; (&ldquo;WIPO Overview 3.0&rdquo;) the term &ldquo;trademark or service mark&rdquo; encompasses both registered and unregistered (common law) marks;<\/li>\n<li>The Complainant alleges that it has submitted evidence demonstrating acquired distinctiveness that it and its legal predecessors have been using the &ldquo;MELBET&rdquo; mark for online betting and casino services since 2012;<\/li>\n<li>The Complainant refers to reviews and information available online that, in the Complainant&rsquo;s view, prove recognition of the &ldquo;Melbet&rdquo; mark among relevant consumers and the number of total users &ndash; 400,000 also proves existence of common law trademark rights.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks since it fully incorporates the mark plus a geographical term &ldquo;EG&rdquo; &ndash; Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>The .com gTLD does not affect confusing similarity analysis.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered on December 26, 2023, namely after the filing and registration of its &ldquo;Melbet&rdquo; trademarks and acquisition of common law trademark rights.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that it has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form.<\/p>\n<p>There is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name or owns any corresponding registered trademarks.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent has not been using, or preparing to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, nor making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant alleges that the structure of the disputed domain name reflects the Respondent&rsquo;s intention to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant, its trademarks, and its business conducted under the same mark.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant believes that the disputed domain name falsely suggests affiliation with the Complainant. Besides, the content of the website at the disputed domain name creates a direct association with the Complainant and its trademarks, the website contains logos of the Complainant and its figurative trademarks. The Complainant also highlights that the website at the disputed domain name does not identify the person operating the website and its relationship to the Complainant. Instead, it mentions at its bottom that it is owned and operated by &ldquo;Pelican Entertainment&rdquo; which further strengthens the risk of association with the Complainant.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant refers to WIPO Overview 3.0 and sec. 2.13.1, namely that the use of a domain name for illegal activities such as impersonation and other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. In particular, the Complainant notes that the Respondent&rsquo;s website due to the use of the Arabic language and incorporation of the country code &ldquo;EG&rdquo; in the disputed domain name gives the false impression that it is the official Egyptian website of the Complainant, which is not the case.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to engage in illegal activities, in particular to impersonate the Complainant and\/or to pass off its services as those of the Complainant.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant&rsquo;s submissions on the bad faith element can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Complainant states that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the first registrations of the Complainant&rsquo;s &ldquo;MELBET trademarks and after the Complainant established alleged common law trademark;<\/li>\n<li>The Complainant alleges that its &ldquo;MELBET&rdquo; marks are widely-known due to the overwhelming online presence of the Platform. The Complainant alleges that by conducting a simple online search on popular search engines for the term \"Melbet\", the Respondent would have inevitably learned about the Complainant, its mark and its business;<\/li>\n<li>The registration of the disputed domain name is intended to create a direct association with the Complainant's &ldquo;MELBET&rdquo; trademarks, and the Complainant's own domain name &lt;melbet.com&gt;. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of the Complainant&rsquo;s mark and the content of the website at the disputed domain name demonstrates that;<\/li>\n<li>The Complainant claims that the Respondent&rsquo;s behavior falls within par. 4 b.(iv) of the Policy and the Respondent&rsquo;s use of the disputed domain name as described above creates a likelihood of confusion in Internet users&rsquo; mind and may lead them to attempt contacting the person operating the website to purchase services.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Based on the above the Complainants claim that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>The Complainant's contentions are summarized in the Factual Background section above<\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.&nbsp;<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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<p><strong><u>Language of the administrative proceeding:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Registrar in its verification stated that the language of the registration agreement is Russian.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant requests to conduct this proceeding in English based on the following grounds:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The content of the website at the disputed domain name is in Arabic rather than Russian;<\/li>\n<li>The website contains several English words, including but not limited to \"PROMO CODE, Get Lucky AZ, Android, MELBET APK\". This shows that the Respondent, who is based in Russia, understands the language of the complaint and<\/li>\n<li>If the Complainant were required to translate the complaint into Russian, such translation would result in significant additional costs to the Complainant and delay in the proceedings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Under par. 11 (a) of the UDRP Rules unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel needs to consider the interests of both parties to the proceeding and provide them with a fair opportunity to present their case and at the same time to ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel carefully considered the need to conduct this proceeding with due expedition and the issue of fairness to both parties and decided to accept the Complainant&rsquo;s request and conduct this proceeding in English.<\/p>\n<p>The website at the disputed domain name is in Arabic. Some words\/phrases on the website are in English and some phrases appear to be in Azeri language. Therefore, the Respondent did not choose to have his website in Russian and based on the evidence available there is no Russian language information on the website at the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent was notified by the CAC in both Russian and English language about this proceeding, he did not submit any response (whether formal or informal) and he never accessed the online platform of the CAC.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel knows both Russian and English and had the Respondent submitted any response and\/or evidence in Russian, the Panel would have considered such response \/evidence.<\/p>\n<p>However, the Respondent chose not to respond. In particular, the Respondent never questioned the language issue in this dispute.<\/p>\n<p>In the circumstances when the Respondent chose to have his website in Arabic with some phrases in English and Azeri and the Respondent failed to submit any response, the Panel finds that changing the language of the proceeding to English would not be unfair.<\/p>\n<p>Based on the above the Panel decides to proceed in English.<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-10-28 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademark registrations:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Peruvian trademark registration No. S00149219 &ldquo;Melbet&rdquo; (figurative), filing date is June 8, 2023, registration date is August 10, 2023;<\/li>\n<li>Burundian trademark registration No. 10242\/BI &ldquo;Melbet&rdquo; (figurative), filing date is November 9, 2022, registration date is November 15, 2022 and<\/li>\n<li>Mauritius trademark registration No. 34042\/2023 &ldquo;Melbet&rdquo; (figurative), filing and registration date is November 9, 2022.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Complainant also refers to numerous trademark applications for &ldquo;Melbet&rdquo; in various jurisdictions filed in 2023 and 2024, including Serbia and the EU.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant alleges common law trademark rights in the word and figurative &ldquo;MELBET&rdquo; mark in relation to online betting and casino services as summarized below.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "melbet-eg.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}