1xbetsrilanka.com

The timeline behind 1xbetsrilanka.com

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

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

Case number CAC-UDRP-106437 Time of filing 2024-04-15 10:14:19 Domain names 1xbetsrilanka.com Case administrator Organization Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin) Complainant Organization Navasard Limited Complainant representative Organization Sindelka & Lachmannová advokáti s.r.o. Respondent Name Dmitryy Dmitryy Other Legal Proceedings The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name. Identification Of Rights The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations across various jurisdictions, inter alia the European trademark No. 014227681 "1XBET", registered since September 21, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "Trademark"). Factual Background The Complainant is an online gambling company. It was founded in 2007 and is registered in Cyprus. The Complainant provides information on its services online inter alia at <1xbet.com>, registered since September 1, 2006. The disputed domain name <1xbetsrilanka.com> was registered on June 20, 2022 and is used in connection with an active website which is providing for online bets and casino gaming. Parties Contentions COMPLAINANT: The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that it is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, and that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its well-known Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith. RESPONDENT: NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. Rights The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark 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 disputed 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 disputed 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 Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 1. The Panel accepts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark as it fully incorporates it. It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of geographic terms, such as "srilanka" in the present case. 2. The Complainant has substantiated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 3.1 The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights in the Trademark as the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established. 3.2 Furthermore, the Panel accepts the Complainant's contentions that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith. By creating a website that features the same or similar content as the Complainant, the Respondent uses the domain name in bad faith. The purpose of this website clearly is to attract Internet users to the site, for profit, based on the confusing similarity of the Respondent’s domain name and website vis-à-vis the Complainant and its website. The Panel therefore infers that the Respondent profits from the goodwill associated with the Trademark by capitalizing on the fame of the Complainant and its Trademark. It shows that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name primarily with the intention of attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website and that is indeed of proof of bad faith use of the disputed domain name. For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be 1xbetsrilanka.com : Transferred PANELLISTS Name Stefanie Efstathiou LL.M. mult. Date of Panel Decision 2024-05-24 Publish the Decision

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