{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006391",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "1bets10.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Domain Name Department (Realm Entertainment Limited)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "John Smith"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, Realm Entertainment Limited, is a limited liability company which is incorporated in Malta.\r\n\r\nComplainant is holder of a Community Trademark “BETS10” (registration no. 009941139), with application date May 4, 2011. The trademark is registered for the following Nice Classes: \r\n\r\nClass 36: financial sponsorship of competitions, films and TV-programs; financial affairs; monetary affairs.\r\n\r\nClass 38: computer-aided transmission of messages and images; communications by computer terminals; electronic mail; providing telecommunications connections to a global computer network; providing user access to a global computer network (service providers); providing of user access to computer databases.\r\n\r\nClass 41: entertainment services; organizations of competitions (education or entertainment); gaming services; entertainment information services, casino facilities (gambling); providing amusement arcade services; operating lotteries; game services provided on-line (from a computer network); betting services.\r\n\r\nComplainant also runs a website with domain name “bets10.com” where a wide range of online gambling products and games is provided.\r\n\r\nRespondent has registered the domain name “1bets10.eu” on June 8, 2012.\r\n\r\nA cease and desist letter was sent to the Respondent by the Complainant on July 12, 2012, which remained without any reaction.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings (pending or decided) which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Panel has reviewed and considered the Complainant’s complaint and annexed documents.\r\n\r\nParagraph B.10(a) of the ADR Rules provides that if a party fails to respond within the given deadlines, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the Complaint, and may consider the failure to respond as grounds to accept the claims of the counterparty. However, in order for the complaint to succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that the requirements of article 21.1 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 (hereinafter the “Regulation”) and paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules are satisfied.\r\n\r\nIn accordance with article 21.1 of the Regulation and paragraph B.11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish that: \r\na. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right (of the Complainant) is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law; and either \r\nb. the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; or \r\nc. the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nA: \r\n\r\n(Since a domain name itself, such as Complainant’s domain name bets10.com, does not fall into the category of names in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law, the Panel will only address the trademark issue.) \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is holder of a Community Trademark “BETS10” (registration no. 009941139). A Community trademark is without question “a right recognized or established by national and\/or Community law”. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name “1BETS10.EU” is later than the priority of Complainant’s trademark “BETS10”. \r\n\r\nTo assess the possible “confusing similarity”, the .eu suffix has to be disregarded. \r\n\r\nThe domain name contains Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, apart for the mere addition of the number 1.\r\n\r\nConclusion: \r\nThe Panel is of the opinion that, according to the requirements of article 21.1(a.), the Complainant provided sufficient evidence that the domain name is confusingly similar to the name of Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nB: \r\n\r\nThe Complainant explained that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, neither did the Complainant give permission to the Respondent to register a domain name containing Complainant’s trademark.  \r\n\r\nThere is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, nor that the Respondent is making a legitimate or fair use of the domain name. \r\n\r\nConclusion: \r\nIn the absence of any Respondent’s communication or Response, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s arguments and could not determine any fact or circumstances meeting the article 21.1(b) to establish a right or legitimate interest of the Respondent for using the name.\r\n\r\nC:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also submitted that the Respondent registered and\/or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nAlthough there is no need for the Complainant to prove bad faith anymore - given that there is no legitimate interest - the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the combination of the following facts may lead to the conclusion that the domain name was registered with the mark BETS10 in mind and to commercially profit from misleading consumers searching for information about the Complainant’s business:\r\n\r\n(1) the Respondent uses its website registered under the disputed domain name for information in Turkish related to the same kind of services as the Complainant’s trademark;\r\n\r\n(2) the Complainant submitted evidence showing that Complainant’s trademark BETS10 itself is used frequently on the website registered by the Respondent under the disputed domain name;\r\n\r\nMoreover, the combination of the above mentioned circumstances and the fact that the disputed domain name was registered on June 8, 2012, which is after Complainant’s trademark, indicates that the domain name was probably registered for the purpose of preventing the Complainant from being able to register and use the domain name and disrupt Complainant’s business.\r\n\r\nConclusion: \r\nGiven all the circumstances, it is the Panel’s opinion that the disputed domain name was indeed registered and used in bad faith.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name 1BETS10.EU be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2013-02-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: 1BETS10.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Malta, country of the Respondent: U.K.\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: June 8, 2012\r\n\r\nIV.    Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision: Word CTM, reg. No. 009941139, for the term Bets10, filed on 4 May 2011, registered on 14 September 2011, in respect of goods and services in classes 36, 38 and 41.\r\n \r\nV.    Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is confusingly similar to the protected right of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nVII.  Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004): No\r\nWhy: The Respondent was not permitted by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name; he is not commonly known by the domain name and does not make a legitimate or fair use of it.\r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004): Yes\r\nWhy: Website used for information on the same services as Complainant offers, the Complainant´s trademark used on the website, the disputed domain name registered after the registration of the Complainant´s trademark.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: The Respondent did not submit any response to the complaint.\r\n\r\nXII. Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}