WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Tipico Co. Ltd. v. jihemei2019 mu m huateng, mai

Case No. D2020-0364

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Tipico Co. Ltd., Malta, represented by Boehmert & Boehmert, Germany.

The Respondent is jihemei2019 mu m huateng, mai, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bettipico.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 14, 2020. On February 17, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 18, 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 February 19, 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 amendment to the Complaint on February 20, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 February 24, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 15, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 16, 2020.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on April 3, 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 is the owner of the mark TIPICO registered, inter alia as International Registration (word) No. 863984 registered on May 25, 2005 for betting services designating, amongst other territories, the European Union and the United States of America (“United States”).

The Domain Name registered on December 12, 2019 resolves to a website offering links to third party commercial content including pornography and betting apps.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:

The Complainant is the owner of the mark TIPICO registered, inter alia, as International Registration (word) No. 863984 registered on May 25, 2005 for betting services designating, amongst other territories, the European Union and the United States.

The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark, as it wholly incorporates said mark adding only the descriptive term “bet” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it, and is not authorised by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trade mark.

The Domain Name has been attached to a site offering links to third party commercial content including pornography. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. The combination of the word “bet” with the Complainant’s TIPICO mark shows that the Respondent has knowledge of the Complainant, its business, rights and services. The Respondent has intentionally sought to divert Internet users for commercial gain. Use for links to pornography can demonstrate bad faith registration and use in itself.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant’s TIPICO mark (registered, inter alia, as International Registration (word) No. 863984 registered on May 25, 2005 for betting services designating, amongst other territories, the European Union and the United States), the dictionary term “bet”, and the gTLD “.com”.

The addition of the dictionary term “bet” and the gTLD “.com” does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purposes of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it is commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use its mark. The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so cannot be legitimate noncommercial fair use.

The Domain Name has been attached to a website providing links to third party commercial content including pornography and betting apps. The use of a domain name containing an established trade mark to resolve to adult orientated material or third party commercial content taking advantage of that established trade mark cannot constitute a bona fide use.

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The use by the Respondent of the Complainant’s TIPICO mark with the additional descriptive term “bet” shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its rights, business and services at the time of registration of the Domain Name.

The attaching of the Domain Name to a website linking to third party commercial content including pornography and competing betting apps is evidence of bad faith registration and use.

The Respondent is also intentionally attracting, diverting and misleading Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the business of a competitor in the case of the betting apps.

As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and 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 disputed domain name <bettipico.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: April 17, 2020