Westmore · UDRP DecisionMobilbahis274.com, Mobilbahis275.com, Mobilbahis276.com
The Panel ordered transfer of all three disputed domain names. It found them confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MOBILBAHIS mark because each incorporated the mark with only a numerical suffix. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and the domains were registered and used to create an apparent association with the Complainant and obtain commercial profit by deceiving users seeking the Complainant’s online gambling services.
The timeline behind mobilbahis274.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 mobilbahis274.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The case illustrates how a panel may evaluate a coordinated group of sequentially numbered domains when their live content changes over time. Historical screenshots, movement of similar content between domains, and shared technical infrastructure allowed the Panel to assess inactive or differently resolving domains alongside domains previously used for competing services.
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 Realm Entertainment Limited v. Muzaffer Sezer Case No. D2018-1148 1. The Parties The Complainant is Realm Entertainment Limited of Ta’ Xbiex, Malta, represented by Ports Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Muzaffer Sezer of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <mobilbahis274.com>, <mobilbahis275.com>, <mobilbahis276.com> are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 23, 2018. On May 23, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 24, 2018, 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 proceedings commenced on May 25, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 14, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 18, 2018. The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on June 25, 2018. 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 The Complainant Realm Entertainment Limited is a limited liability company incorporated in Malta. Since 2011 the Complainant has run the well-known games site “www.bets10.com” – where the trademark BETS10 is clearly visible. Under the name BETS10 the Complainant offers a wide range of first class online gambling products in games in a safe and user friendly gaming environment. BETS10 has eighteen million active poker players providing the largest poker network in the world. The Complainant also provides gambling services under well-established marks; CASINO MAXI COMMISSION LOUNGE, CASINO METROPOL and MOBILBAHIS. In January 2016 the Complainant registered and launched the site “www.mobilbahis.com” which has become widely successful in a very short period of time. The Complainant is the owner of inter alia the following trademarks: European Union Trade Mark MOBILBAHIS (word) Reg. No. 016264921, registered on September 5, 2017 in classes 35, 36, 38 and 41. European Union Trade Mark MOBILBAHIS (figurative) Reg, No, 016936007 and No. 016936023, registered on October 19, 2017 in classes 35, 36, 38 and 41. European Union Trade Mark MOBILBAHIS (figurative) Reg. No. 016936023 registered on October 19, 2017 in classes 35, 36, 38 and 41. The disputed domain names <mobilbahis274.com>, <mobilbahis275.com> and <mobilbahis276.com> were registered on April 11, 2018, April 30, 2018 and May 7, 2018, respectively. At the time of issuing this Decision, the disputed domain names <mobilbahis274.com> and <mobilbahis276.com> are inactive and the disputed domain name <mobilbahis275.com> resolves to a forum website named “dx-team.org”. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain names <mobilbahis274.com> and <mobilbahis276.com> used to redirect Internet users to a website providing the same sort of services as the Complainant and the disputed domain name <mobilbahis275.com> was inactive. In the absence of evidence from the Respondent the Panel proceeds to determine the Complaint on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Complainant which it finds to be true. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant 1. The Complainant submits that the three disputed domain names <mobilbahis 274>, <mobilbahis 275> and <mobilbahis 276> (together referred to as the disputed domain names) are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. 2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any rights in the trademarks nor is a licensee of the Complainant. The Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission to register the trademark MOBILBAHIS as a domain name. 3. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names nor is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. 4. The Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain names on its website for the purpose of accessing a website including information about the same business and services as the Complainant provides. On the evidence the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names solely for the purpose of creating an association with the Complainant in relation to the provision of gambling services. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based upon the evidence adduced by the Complainant and referred to above the Complainant has existing trademark rights in the mark MOBILBAHIS which predate the registration of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The only differences are the addition of the numbers “274”, “275” and “276”. In the Panel’s view this is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark MOBILBAHIS in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel accepts the evidence submitted by the Complainant that the Respondent does not have any rights in the trademark MOBILBAHIS nor is there a licensee agreement from the Complainant or any form of permission to register the trademark as a domain name. It also accepts the Complainant’s submission that there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names or is making a legitimate noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain names. To the contrary the evidence produced by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain names are being used in a manner which is likely to enable the Respondent to profit commercially from misleading consumers searching for information about the Complainant’s business and trademarks. In particular, annex 8 to the Complaint shows how the Respondent has been using the trademark MOBILBAHIS on their websites <mobilbahis274.com> and <mobilbahis276.com> providing the same sort of services and business as the Complainant does on its website. The Complainant submits that it is relevant that content on the website accessed by <mobilbahis274.com> was removed shortly after a cease and desist letter was sent to the Respondent although the same content was subsequently provided on the website accessed by <mobilbahis276.com>. The print screens exhibited at annex 8 to the Complaint and the source codes provided as annex 9 to 10 of the Complaint also indicate the disputed domain name has been registered to interfere with the Complainant’s business by providing things to competitors. The website accessed by <mobilbahis275.com> has no content though the disputed domain name is pointed to the same name servers as <mobilbahis276.com> and <mobilbahis274.com>. This suggests that the Respondent has prepared <mobilbahis275.com> to be used in the same way and for the same content as the other two disputed domain names. The Panel has considered this evidence and finds that it supports a finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. It is apparent that the Complainant’s trademarks were registered and used by the Complainant well before the Respondent registered the disputed domain names. It is also apparent that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s business when it registered the disputed domain names. It is using confusingly similar domain names in addition to using the trademark MOBILBAHIS at several locations on the website and including information about the same business and services as the Complainant provides. Taking into account the evidence set out in Section B above which demonstrates that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names solely for the purpose of creating an association with the Complainant; in particular with its provided gambling services. According to the screen shots of the websites linked to the disputed domain names set out at annex 8 to the Complaint, it is also apparent that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain names in order to create an impression that the websites are “officially” linked to the Complainant. The Complainant also submits that the Respondent is trying to take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark MOBILBAHIS and to inflict damage on the Complainant’s business. Internet users who search for the disputed domain names or who access the websites accessed under the disputed domain names are expecting to reach the Complainant’s official website. It therefore follows that the Respondent’s domain names are likely to create confusion on the part of the public as they may be confused that the products shown on the website come from the same undertaking or that there is a link between the two undertakings. The Panel therefore agrees with the Complainant’s submission that the disputed domain names were registered and used for the purpose of obtaining commercial profit by deceiving consumers searching for the online games services provided by the Complainant. 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 names <mobilbahis274.com>, <mobilbahis275.com> and <mobilbahis276.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Clive Duncan Thorne Sole Panelist Date: July 18, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around mobilbahis274.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 WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.