Westmore · UDRP DecisionDafa508.com + 3 more domains
The Panel ordered transfer of all four disputed domain names. It found them confusingly similar to the Complainant's DAFA marks because they incorporated DAFA in its entirety with only numbers and the gTLD added. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because its offering was an infringing copy of the Complainant's websites, it was not commonly known by the domains, and it made no legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Registration and use in bad faith were established by the copied website and intentional commercial use of confusion under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.
The timeline behind dafa508.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind dafa508.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The Respondent must have known of the Complainant's DAFA mark because it copied the Complainant's website. It intentionally used the domains to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement, constituting bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv).
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
Case number CAC-UDRP-101075 Time of filing 2015-10-07 12:01:37 Domain names dafa508.com, dafa608.com, dafa628.com, dafa638.com Case administrator Name Lada Válková (Case admin) Complainant Organization Emphasis Services Limited Respondent Name xin facai Other Legal Proceedings None Identification Of Rights Complainant submitted evidence it is the owner of the following trademarks: (i) Hong Kong SAR Registered Trademark No. 302048148 "DAFA" (word mark) registered on 3 October 2011; (ii) Malaysia Registered Trademark No. 2011019075 "DAFA" (word mark) registered on 28 October 2011; (iii) Registered Community Trademark No. 012067088 "DAFABET" (word mark) registered on 17 January 2014; (iv) Registered Community Trademark No. 012067138 dafabet logo (figurative mark) registered on 17 January 2014. The disputed Domain Names were registered on 23 June 2014, i.e. Complainant's trademarks predate the registration of the disputed domain names. Factual Background Complainant's subsidiaries and licensees provide online gaming and betting services under the mark "DAFA" through websites at www.dafabet.com and dafa888.com, with licences in the UK, Isle of Man and Philippines. Complainant has registered "DAFA" as a trademark inter alia in Hong Kong and Malaysia and sponsors several UK football clubs, as well as other sporting events such as the World Snooker Championships. Respondent has directed the Domain Names to a website offering gaming services which has been copied from Complainant's websites. Complainant's cease and desist letter was not answered. Parties Contentions PARTIES' CONTENTIONS: COMPLAINANT: Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to trademarks and in which it claims to have rights. Complainant further claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed Domain Names. According to Complainant, Respondent has not used the Domain Names in connection with a legitimate use and has not been commonly known by the disputed Domain Names. Finally, Complainant contends that the Domain Name were registered and being used in bad faith. NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. Rights The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which the complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy). 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 Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy). Bad Faith The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name has been registered and is 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 The Domain Names incorporate the Complainant's mark "DAFA" in its entirety, adding only numbers (which do not differentiate in the context of gaming) and the generic top level domain name suffix. The Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered and unregistered marks. Respondent's offering is not bona fide; it is an infringing copy of the Complainant's websites which must be intended to cause confusion. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names. Respondent is not making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Names. There is no basis on which Respondent could claim rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent must have known of Complainant's use of and rights in the mark "DAFA" since it copied Complainant's website. Respondent is using the domain names intentionally to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website and its services. This constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. This presumption is not displaced by any countervailing evidence. For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be DAFA508.COM: Transferred DAFA608.COM: Transferred DAFA628.COM: Transferred DAFA638.COM: Transferred PANELLISTS Name Jonathan Turner Date of Panel Decision 2015-11-18 Publish the Decision
Source of record: CAC . Reproduced for research; CAC is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around dafa508.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on CAC-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.