{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107701", "time_of_filling": "2025-06-25 14:02:23", "domain_names": [ "melbetfr.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Batnesto Ltd. " ], "complainant_representative": "Karel Sindelka (Sindelka & Lachmannová advokáti s.r.o.)", "respondent": [ "Zulfat Zakirov" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

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

The Complainant alleges that it is a company registered in Cyprus and the holder of the <melbet.com> domain name. The website at the domain name <melbet.com> is operated by a third party – “Pelican Entertainment” B.V. with the Complainant’s permission.<\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that the “Melbet” online gaming and casino platform has been in operation since 2012 and the Complainant provides screenshots of prior use of the “Melbet” platform (“Platform”).<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the Platform has over 400,000 daily users worldwide and it also refers to its numerous sponsorship deals, including partnership with Spanish football \"La Liga\" and partnership with various sports teams and athletes across the globe including Uganda, India and Turkey.<\/p>\n

The Complainant provides information about the Platform from various sources (such as description and users’ reviews) and states that the “Melbet” betting application is available in various online stores.<\/p>\n

The Complainant provides evidence of design registration in the EU for the website layout and copyright registrations for the website layout in the UK issued by an entity named “Copyright House”.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name is registered on January 25, 2025 and is used for a website that offers competing services and copies design and layout of the Complainant's own website. The website suggests that it is an official website of \"Melbet\" in Ivory Coast.<\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its \"Melbet\" trademarks since it fully incorporates the \"Melbet\" element and the addition of a geographical term \"fr\" (short for \"France\") does not affect confusing similarity analysis and perception of the disputed domain name as being connected to the Complainant and its trademarks.<\/p>\n

THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name was registered on January 25, 2025, after the Complainant obtained protection for its \"Melbet\" trademarks and started its business.<\/p>\n

The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent affiliated with the Complainant in any form. There is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the dispute domain name or owns any corresponding registered trademarks.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also asserts that 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 is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant highlights that the composition of the disputed domain name is misleading and the website at the disputed domain name copies the Complainant's branding, design and trade dress of the Complainant's own website and offers the same services as the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that such use constitutes illegal impersonation and cannot create any rights or legitimate interest of the Respondent.

<\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant’s submissions on the bad faith element can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n

 - The Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the registration of the Complainant’s trademarks and many years after the \"Melbet\" brand was introduced;<\/p>\n

- The Complainant alleges that its “Melbet” marks have a strong digital presence. 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;<\/p>\n

- The disputed domain name has a strong association with the Complainant and its main domain name. This reflects Respondent's intent to target the Complainant and take advantage of Complainant' marks;<\/p>\n

- The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's mark and the website of the Respondent mimics the Complainant's website. This imitation is clearly intended to mislead Internet users into believing that the Respondent's website is affiliated with the Complainant and<\/p>\n

- The Complainant claims that the Respondent’s behavior falls within par. 4 b.(iv) of the Policy and the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name as described above creates a likelihood of confusion.<\/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's contentions are summarized in the Factual Background section above<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed. <\/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

Language of the administrative proceeding:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The language of the registration agreement is Russian.<\/p>\n

The Complainant requests to conduct this proceeding in English based on the following grounds:<\/p>\n

- The disputed domain name itself contains the English word “bet” and the geographic designation “fr,” commonly understood to relate to France rather than Russia;<\/p>\n

- The website at the disputed domain name is in French (not in Russian) and contains some English words;<\/p>\n

- The Respondent targets an international audience and should be capable of understanding both French and English; and<\/p>\n

- Requiring the Complainant to translate all submissions into Russian would result in significant and unnecessary expense and delay, contrary to the aim of the Policy.<\/p>\n

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

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

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’s request and conduct this proceeding in English.<\/p>\n

The website at the disputed domain name is in French. 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

The Respondent is from Russia, whereas Complainant's counsel is from the Czech Republic. English is not the first language for either the Respondent or the Complainant's representative. Therefore, choosing English as a language of this proceeding appears to be fair to both parties of this dispute.<\/p>\n

The Respondent was notified by the CAC in both Russian and English languages 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

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

However, the Respondent chose not to respond. In particular, the Respondent never questioned the language issue in this dispute.<\/p>\n

In the circumstances when the Respondent chose to have his website in French, English is not the first language for the Respondent and for the Complainant's representative in this proceeding 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

Based on the above the Panel decides to proceed in English.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Igor Motsnyi" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-07-26 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies on a number of \"Melbet\" trademark registrations, including the following:<\/p>\n