Westmore · UDRP DecisionLido888.net
The Panel ordered transfer of <lido888.net>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant's LIDO marks because it incorporated LIDO in full and the addition of “888” did not meaningfully distinguish it. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and the domain's use for a Chinese-language website promoting gambling and adult escort services supported the finding that it was registered and used in bad faith.
The timeline behind lido888.net
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 lido888.net — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how incorporating an entire trademark with a numerical suffix may remain confusingly similar, particularly where the suffix has contextual relevance to the services promoted at the domain. It also shows the evidentiary importance of website use and the consequences of failing to rebut a prima facie case under the second UDRP element.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Société d’Exploitation et de Gestion de Spectacles de Music Halls Internationaux v. Xiao Kaka Case No. D2015-2326 1. The Parties The Complainant is Société d’Exploitation et de Gestion de Spectacles de Music Halls Internationaux of Paris, France, represented by Areopage, France. The Respondent is Xiao Kaka of Hunan, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <lido888.net> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 21, 2015. On December 22, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 proceeding commenced on January 7, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 27, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 12, 2016. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on February 12, 2016. 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 A. Complainant The Complainant is a company incorporated in France and the owner and operator of the world-famous LIDO cabaret, founded in 1946 in Paris. The Complainant owns registrations in numerous jurisdictions worldwide for its trade marks LE LIDO and LIDO (the “Trade Mark(s)”), the earliest dating from 1961 and 1972, respectively. B. Respondent The Respondent is an individual apparently resident in China. C. The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was registered on September 23, 2015. D. The Website at the Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name has been resolved to a Chinese language website which promotes various gambling and adult escort services (the “Website”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Marks acquired through use and registration. The disputed domain name comprises the LIDO Trade Mark in its entirety, together with the suffix “888”, which is a number frequently used in the Chinese speaking world to suggest good luck and to promote gambling services. The Panel finds the addition of “888” to “lido” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Trade Marks in any significant way. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Marks. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been used in respect of the Website, which promotes (likely unauthorised) gambling and adult escort services. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the manner of use by the Respondent of the Website described above, the Panel finds the requisite element of bad faith has been satisfied. For the foregoing reasons, the Panel has no hesitation in concluding that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 <lido888.net> be transferred to the Complainant. Sebastian M.W. Hughes Sole Panelist Dated: February 26, 2016
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around lido888.net
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 WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.