Df85.net + 26 more domains

The timeline behind df85.net

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Case number CAC-UDRP-101064 Time of filing 2016-04-26 09:19:23 Domain names df85.net, dafa95.net, dafa85.net, dafa111222.com, dafa23456.com, 888dafaylc.com, 888dfylc.com, dafa000111.com, dafa222333.com, dafa333444.com, dafa34567.com, dafa444555.com, dafa45678.com, dafa555666.com, dafa666777.com, dafayulechen.com, df111888.com, df23456.com, df34567.com, df45678.com, df56789.com, dfdc888.com, wwwdafa85.com, wwwdafa95.com, wwwdf85.com, wwwdf95.com, wwwdfylc.com Case administrator Name Lada Válková (Case admin) Complainant Organization Emphasis Services Limited Respondent Name zhouhan zhou Other Legal Proceedings There are no other pending legal proceedings. Identification Of Rights The Complainant relies on prior rights on various trademarks protected in Class 41 for casino facilities: - word & device European union trademark DAFABET No 012067138, also protected in Class 38 for providing access to poker tournament; - European union trademark DAFABET No 012067088, also protected in Class 38 for providing access to poker tournament; - Malaysian trademark DAFA No 2011019075; - Hong Kong national trademark DAFA No 302048148138. The disputed domain names were created on October 26 or October 27, 2015 and resolve to the websites dedicated to gambling services. The list of the disputed domain names is as follows in the complaint dated April 25, 2016: df85.net dafa95.net dafa85.net dafa111222.com dafa23456.com dafa345345.com 888dafaylc.com 888dfylc.com dafa000111.com dafa222333.com dafa333444.com dafa34567.com dafa444555.com dafa45678.com dafa555666.com dafa666777.com dafa95.net dafayulechen.com df111888.com df23456.com df34567.com df45678.com df56789.com df56789.com dfdc888.com wwwdafa85.com wwwdafa95.com wwwdf85.com wwwdf95.com wwwdfylc.com The domain name < dafa345345.com> is not mentioned any more in the amended complaint dated May 3, 2016. The Panel asked the Complainant to explain if it wants to keep this domain name in the list of the disputed domain names. The Complainant did not respond. Therefore, this domain name shall not be taken into account. Factual Background FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT: The UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) (the “Policy”) provides that Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain names: 1. that Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and 2. that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and 3. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Respondent’s registered domain names are confusingly similar to the “Dafa” mark owned by the Complainant. Essentially, Respondent has appropriated the trademark Dafa and added numbers after the mark. In Nintendo of America, Inc. vs. Garett N. Holland et al (Case No. D2000-1483), the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center held that a user of a mark may not avoid likely confusion by appropriating another’s entire mark and adding descriptive or non-distinctive matter to it. It further added that a domain may be deemed as identical or similar if it incorporates the primary, distinctive element of the trademark. In this complaint, the Respondent copied the whole mark of “Dafa” and merely added numbers. Rights or Legitimate Interests As previously mentioned, Complainant is the owner of intellectual property rights pertaining to “Dafa” due to its registration in various jurisdiction and its usage and notoriety. Complainant denies any direct connection with Respondent that Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s intellectual property in its domain name and website are unauthorized and illegal. Respondent will not be able to show prior usage, registration or any right to use the mark “Dafa” for its website. Bad Faith As above-stated, the Respondent is engaged in the same line of business as that of Complainant which renders his use of the domain names in bad faith as it is an attempt to mislead users that the Complainant and the Respondent are related. This is indicative of its intentions in using the Complainant’s mark “Dafa” and "df" in its domain names. The criteria for the determination of usage of domain name in bad faith is set forth in the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of which states: “(iv) by using the domain name, (Respondent) ha(s) intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to (Respondent’s) web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of (Respondent’s) web site or location or of a product or service on (Respondent’s) web site or location.” • The Respondent is well aware that the Complainant is the owner of the mark “Dafa” because of: 1. Registrations in various jurisdictions; 2. Goodwill and notoriety of the trademarks; • As previously mentioned, “Dafa” and “Dafabet” are not only registered marks in various jurisdictions, it is likewise well known marks due to sponsorship with the English Premier League and the World Snooker Championship. • The Respondent has been sent a cease and desist letter, but no reply was received and they have persisted in their illegal activities Parties Contentions NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. Rights On June 10, 2016, the Panel requested the Complainant to: - produce the Whois of the contested domain names, to mention their creation date, and to produce the screenshots of the accessible respective websites. An extract of Whois data was produced together with the related screenshots, for each disputed domain name, within the prescribed deadline; - produce the license agreement with the owner of the cited European Union trademarks and the alleged assignment to the Complainant. Indeed, the Complainant responded, producing new exhibits proving that the European trademarks were assigned to its benefit. The disputed domain names are composed either with the verbal element DAFA, which is a coined trademark or with the consonants “DF” of the verbal trademark DAFA, which is composed with two consonants and one vowel. Adding numbers does not exclude any likelihood of confusion, taking into account the fact that the disputed domain names are used for gambling services, for which numbers are very important. This analysis does not apply to three of the disputed domain names, which include other letters than “D” “A” and “”F”, what excludes any likelihood of confusion: 888dfylc.com dfdc888.com wwwdfylc.com The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that, under the exception of 888dfylc.com, dfdc888.com and wwwdfylc.com, the Domain Names are confusingly similar to its DAFA and DAFABET trademarks in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy). No Rights or Legitimate Interests The provided screenshots relating to each disputed domain name mention the website address www.dafa9999.com. It shows the intent to rely on the DAFA and DAFABET trademarks’ image, although there is no relation or partnership between the parties. The Respondent did not even try to contest the cease and desist letter. It merely answered “Give us a week. I’m changing the company name! Thank you!” Given the type of service provided by the parties, the Panel finds that it can not tolerate any domain name registration that is confusingly similar to the opposed trademarks and that resolves to misleading websites. The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy). Bad Faith The complaint was sent by post to the Respondent and it was returned because the postal address mentioned on the Whois is “insufficient” to enable the delivery of post. Providing insufficient postal addresses to be mentioned on the Whois database is a violation of the disputed domain names registration agreements. The response to the cease and desist letter was sent by email from the address dafa888du@gmail.com, that includes the trademark DAFA. It announced a modification of the company name, suggesting that it was supposed to resolve the dispute. Nothing happened and the complaint even remained unanswered. The Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)( iii)of the Policy: “you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor”. Furthermore, given the here above facts, the Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain names were used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv)of the Policy “ by using the domain name, (Respondent) ha(s) intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to (Respondent’s) web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of (Respondent’s) web site or location or of a product or service on (Respondent’s) web site or location.” The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy). 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. Principal Reasons for the Decision Respondent suggested that it would modify its company name after receiving a cease and desist letter. It did not happen and he did not respond to the complaint. All disputed domain names are composed either with the DAFA coined trademark, or with its consonents DF. All disputed domain names resolve to gambling websites mentioning the website www.dafa9999.com, to clearly rely on the DAFA trademarks which are protected for casino services. Complainant made a prima facie case that the disputed domain names were registered without any right or legitimate interest and were registered and used in bad faith. For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be DF85.NET: Transferred DAFA95.NET: Transferred DAFA85.NET: Transferred DAFA111222.COM: Transferred DAFA23456.COM: Transferred 888DAFAYLC.COM: Transferred 888DFYLC.COM: Remaining with the Respondent DAFA000111.COM: Transferred DAFA222333.COM: Transferred DAFA333444.COM: Transferred DAFA34567.COM: Transferred DAFA444555.COM: Transferred DAFA45678.COM: Transferred DAFA555666.COM: Transferred DAFA666777.COM: Transferred DAFAYULECHEN.COM: Transferred DF111888.COM: Transferred DF23456.COM: Transferred DF34567.COM: Transferred DF45678.COM: Transferred DF56789.COM: Transferred DFDC888.COM: Remaining with the Respondent WWWDAFA85.COM: Transferred WWWDAFA95.COM: Transferred WWWDF85.COM: Transferred WWWDF95.COM: Transferred WWWDFYLC.COM: Remaining with the Respondent PANELLISTS Name Marie Marie-Emmanuelle Haas, Avocat Date of Panel Decision 2016-07-04 Publish the Decision

Source of record: CAC . Reproduced for research; CAC is the authoritative source.