Westmore · UDRP DecisionBookofra.website
The Panel ordered transfer of <bookofra.website>. It found the Domain Name identical to Complainant’s registered BOOK OF RA mark, found no evidence that Respondent had rights or legitimate interests, and concluded that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. The bad-faith finding rested principally on the mark’s reputation and prior use and registration, the complete incorporation of the mark, the likelihood that Respondent knew of Complainant and its online-gaming activities, and the absence of any plausible good-faith basis for the registration despite the Domain Name’s inactive status.
The timeline behind bookofra.website
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 bookofra.website — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how an exact-match domain that remains inactive can still satisfy all three UDRP elements where the complainant has substantially earlier registered rights, the mark has an accepted reputation in the relevant industry, no legitimate explanation is offered, and the surrounding circumstances support an inference that the respondent knew of and targeted the mark.
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 Novomatic AG v. E-CloudSolutions Case No. D2019-2627 1. The Parties Complainant is Novomatic AG, Austria, represented by GEISTWERT Kletzer Messner Mosing Schnider Schultes Rechtsanwälte OG, Austria. Respondent is E-CloudSolutions, Belize. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bookofra.website> (“Domain Name”)is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 28, 2019. On October 28, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 30, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 4, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 24, 2019. Respondent sent an email to the Center on November 22, 2019. The Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on November 25, 2019. The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on December 16, 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 Per Complaint, Complainant is an Austrian company, founded in 1990. Complainant’s group, with a turnover of around EUR 5 billion in 2018 is one of the largest high-tech gaming technology companies worldwide. The group was founded in 1980 and employs more than 30,000 staff worldwide. Complainant’s group has locations in more than 50 countries and exports high-tech electronic gaming equipment and solutions to more than 70 countries. It operates around 255,000 gaming terminals and video lottery terminals (“VLTs”) in more than 2,100 gaming operations as well as via rental. Per Complaint, Complainant has long used the name BOOK OF RA to denote its products and the brand has acquired reputation among relevant consumers. Complainant owns trademark registrations for BOOK OF RA, including: - European Union Trade Mark registration No. 4451431 for BOOK OF RA (word), filed on May 23, 2005 and registered on May 24, 2006, for goods and services in International classes 9, 28 and 41; and - European Union Trade Mark registration No. 12456828 for BOOK OF RA (figurative), filed on December 9, 2013 and registered on April 24, 2014, for goods and services in International classes 9, 28 and 41. The Domain Name was registered on October 16, 2019, and does not resolve to an active web page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the BOOK OF RA mark. The Panel finds that the Domain Name <bookofra.website> is identical to the BOOK OF RA trademark of Complainant. The Domain Name incorporates the trademark of Complainant in its entirety. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.website” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons only ( Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn , WIPO Case No. D2017-0275 ). Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not submitted any formal response and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. As per Complaint, Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain Name. Respondent did not demonstrate, prior to the notice of the dispute, any use of the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrates, the Domain Name leads to an inactive website. The Panel finds that these circumstances do not confer upon Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. As per Complaint, Complainant’s BOOK OF RA trademark has acquired reputation in the field of gaming and online gaming. Because the BOOK OF RA mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering this Domain Name. Respondent should have known about Complainant’s rights, due to the fact that Complainant’s mark had reputation when the Domain Name was registered. Furthermore, such knowledge is readily obtainable through a simple browser search due to Complainant’s wide use of BOOK OF RA mark on the Internet ( Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC , WIPO Case No. D2005-0517 ; Compart AG v. Compart.com / Vertical Axis, Inc ., WIPO Case No. D2009-0462 ). This also in view of the nature of Complainant’s services under BOOK OF RA, namely inter alia online gaming. Respondent could have searched the European Union trademark registry and should have found Complainant’s prior registrations in respect of BOOK OF RA ( Citrix Online LLC v. Ramalinga Reddy Sanikommu Venkata , WIPO Case No. D2012-1338 ). Furthermore, the Domain Name incorporates in whole Complainant’s mark. The Domain Name therefore creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Domain Name. This also further indicates that Respondent knew of Complainant and chose the Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant and its industry . Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds no good-faith basis for Respondent’s conduct vis-à-vis the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Domain Name <bookofra.website> be transferred to Complainant. Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: December 30, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around bookofra.website
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.