Westmore · UDRP DecisionBeinsports-streaming.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <beinsports-streaming.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BEIN SPORTS mark, held that the unrebutted record established no rights or legitimate interests, and found bad-faith registration and use based on the incorporation of the well-known mark with the service-related word “streaming” and use of the domain for pay-per-click links to competitive services.
The timeline behind beinsports-streaming.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 beinsports-streaming.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a straightforward UDRP pattern in which an entire well-known mark is combined with a term closely connected to the trademark owner’s services and then used for monetized links to competitors. The service-related addition reinforced rather than reduced the association with the Complainant, while the competitive pay-per-click use was material to both the legitimate-interests and bad-faith findings.
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 beIN Media Group L.L.C v. Compsys Domain, Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited Case No. D2018-2785 1. The Parties The Complainant is beIN Media Group L.L.C of Doha, Qatar, represented by Tmark Conseils, France. The Respondent is Compsys Domain, Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited of Mumbai, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <beinsports-streaming.com> is 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 December 5, 2018. On December 5, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 6, 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 December 18, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 7, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 8, 2019. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on January 14, 2019. 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 is a Qatari media group that is well-known worldwide, notably for broadcasting and streaming major sporting events and entertainment. It owns a number of trademark registrations in jurisdictions around the world, including Registration No. 012994067, registered on November 5, 2014 in the European Union and Registration No. 5273645, registered on August 29, 2017 in the United States of America, for the marks BEIN SPORT and BEIN SPORTS respectively. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 1, 2017 and has used it to redirect to a web page containing sponsored advertisements, many providing links to services competitive to those of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant undoubtedly has rights in the mark BEIN SPORTS. The mark is subject to registrations that predate registration of the disputed domain name, and has been in widespread use for several years. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s mark in its entirety and is in this manner identical or confusingly similar to the BEIN SPORTS mark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” may be disregarded for the purpose of comparing the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s mark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on this first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant will be successful under this element of the Policy if it makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and if that prima facie showing remains unrebutted by the Respondent. The Complainant asserts, among other things, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the words comprising the disputed domain name, and the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services ( i.e., providing sponsored links to competitive services is not a bona fide use. These assertions establish the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Respondent has not answered the Complainant’s assertions, and, seeing no basis in the record to overcome the Complainant’s prima facie showing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this second Policy element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Because the Complainant’s mark is well-known, it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of that mark when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name consists of the mark BEIN SPORTS in its entirety, along with the word “streaming”, a word descriptive of or related to the Complainant’s services. In the circumstances of this case, such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is clear from the Respondent’s activities of using the disputed domain name to provide a website with pay-per-click links for competitive services. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this third Policy element. 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, <beinsports-streaming.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: January 26, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around beinsports-streaming.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.