WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Navasard Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected / nameche cnename, vk

Case No. D2020-1218

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Navasard Limited, Cyprus, represented by Giorgos Landas LLC, Cyprus.

The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, Panama / nameche cnename, vk, Saudi Arabia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <1xbet.social> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 14, 2020. On May 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 14, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 15, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 19, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 20, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 9, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 10, 2020.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on June 18, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant provides online sport betting services since 2015. The Complainant is the owner of the mark 1XBET registered, inter alia, in the European Union (“EU”) with the registration No. 014227681 registered on September 21, 2015 for online betting services.

The Domain Name registered on August 24, 2019. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to an error page. At the time of the decision, the Domain Name resolves to a website purportedly offering various templates and themes for setting up a new website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant is the owner of the mark 1XBET registered, inter alia, in the EU for online betting services since 2015.

The Domain Name registered in 2019 is identical to the Complainant’s mark adding only the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.social”.

The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

The Domain Name has not been used and so there is no bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. This is passive holding which is bad faith per se.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s 1XBET mark (which is registered in the EU for online betting services since 2015) and the gTLD “.social”.

The gTLD “.social” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. A gTLD is a necessary part of a domain name and does not form part of any trade mark involved in these proceedings.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

As such, the Panel holds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.

There has been no use of the Domain Name apart from a single page purporting to offer web templates which is more akin to a holding page than an actual website. Inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii).

Moreover, the nature of the Domain Name carries a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.5.1.

As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s mark. Considering the distinctiveness and fame of the Complainant’s 1XBET trade mark, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainant’s trade mark when it registered the disputed domain name.

The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. The Domain Name does not resolve to a working and active website. Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The Panel also finds so under the circumstances of this case. The current use of the Domain Name purportedly offering various templates and themes for setting up a new website being just a single page which is more akin to a holding page rather than an active website does not prevent this finding.

As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <1xbet.social> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: June 19, 2020