Westmore · UDRP DecisionMbcdream.cc
The Panel permitted consolidation of the two related Complainants and ordered transfer of <mbcdream.cc>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the registered MBC mark, that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that Respondent registered and used the domain in bad faith by diverting users through websites associated with contests and broadcasting products, including a site that mimicked Complainant's MBC Dream contest website.
The timeline behind mbcdream.cc
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The case illustrates how adding a term associated with a complainant's program can strengthen rather than reduce the inference of targeting. The outcome rested not merely on incorporation of the MBC mark, but also on the close correspondence between “dream,” the MBC Dream prize show, and the domain's contest-related use. The decision also demonstrates consolidation of affiliated complainants where their distinct trademark, broadcasting, and program interests were affected by the same domain-name conduct.
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 MBC FZ LLC , MBC IP FZ LLC v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Med chaali Case No. D2021-3213 1. The Parties Complainants are MBC FZ LLC and MBC IP FZ LLC, United Arab Emirates, represented by BSA Ahmad Ben Hezeem & Associates LLP, United Arab Emirates. Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Med chaali, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <mbcdream.cc> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 23, 2021. On September 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 29, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainants on October 7, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Center received an email communication from Respondent on October 8, 2021. Complainants filed an amended Complaint on October 10, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 October 28, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 17, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the commencement of the Panel appointment process on November 18, 2021. The Center appointed Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa as the sole panelist in this matter on November 24, 2021. 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. On December 15, 2021, the Panel issued a Procedural Order requesting that Complainant provide additional information about the joining of Complainants and clarification of the “MBC” entity mentioned in the Complaint. Complainant replied on the same day. Respondent did not provide any response to this additional information. 4. Factual Background Complainants, based in Dubai, operate media and broadcasting stations in the Arabic-speaking region and internationally. Complainant MBC IP FZ LLC is the owner of marks containing the element “MBC.” Complainant MBC FZ LLC is the owner and operator of all “MBC” channels, holds broadcasting rights to the “MBC” programming and is the licensee of some MBC marks and the owner of others. Among the TV shows produced by Complainant MBC FZ LLC is “MBC Dream,” which has aired since 2006. The show’s website can be accessed at the domain name <mydream.mbc.net>. Complainants operate a primary business website at “www.mbc.net.” Complainants are the proprietor of numerous marks containing the element MBC, including the following: - United Kingdom Trademark No. UK00002159840 for MBC (device mark), registered on November 27, 1998 for services in class 38; - European Union Trade Mark No. 000844910 for MBC (word mark), registered on March 29, 2005 for services in class 41; - United Arab Emirates Trademark No. 196365 for MBC (device mark), registered on July 9, 2014 for goods in class 9. The disputed domain name was registered on December 13, 2020. At the time of this Decision, it redirects to “www.mbcegypt.com,” a website that states it is operated by “Modern Broadcast Center LLC” and offers for sale products used by the media and broadcast industries. The record contains evidence that it previously redirected to various websites inviting Internet users to take part in a competition. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainants request consolidation of Complainants for the following reasons: Complainants have a common legal interest in their respective rights against Respondent. Complainants are both wholly owned entities of MBC Group Holdings Limited. The Complaint was filed on behalf of both entities to address all rights related to the “MBC Dream” television program and because each entity owns some elements and rights related to the Complaint. Both entities have demonstrated a vest interest to pursue this cybersquatting Complaint. Complainants’ substantive contentions may be summarized as follows: Under the first element, Complainants state that its parent company, the MBC Group, operates the first private free-to-air satellite broadcasting company in the Arabic speaking region, which was launched in London in 1991. MBC Group which is one of the world’s leading companies in media and broadcasting sectors and entertainment events, with a large network of offices and business units. The MBC Group runs and manages a number of well-known TV and Internet based channels with a global audience, including MBC, MBC, MBC MISR, MBC 2, MBC 3, MBC 4, MBC Action, Shahid.com, MBC Drama. Its programs reach 300 million Arabic-speaking viewers. Since 2006, MBC has produced and aired a television show entitled “MBC Dream” in which viewers have the opportunity to win prizes. It is one of the most watched game shows as well as top trending and rating game shows in Arab world. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MBC mark and to the domain name used by its “MBC Dream” television show, and to Complainant’s unregistered rights in the mark MBC DREAM. Under the second element, Complainants state that Respondent is not connected to or authorized by Complainant to use its MBC mark. Respondent has no rights in the name “MBC DREAM”. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect to fraudulent websites mimicking Complainant’s site with a quiz question format. There is no legitimate noncommercial use of the disputed domain name. Under the third element, Complainants state that rights in the MBC mark date to 1991. The MBC mark has become famous in the Middle East. By using the disputed domain name to redirect to a website copying Complainants’ website, using its logo and images, and inviting users to participate in a contest, Respondent clearly demonstrates knowledge of Complainants. Complainants request transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent Respondent did not provide a formal Response to Complainants’ contentions. In an email communication to the Center on October 8, 2021, a party identifying as “Mohammed Chaali” wrote: “Good morning, Website mbcdream.cc is closed now.” 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue - Consolidation of Multiple Complainants Pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules: (a) the Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules. (b) In all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. The principles to assess a request to consolidate multiple complainants are set forth in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 4.11.1. Noting the circumstances of the case, the Panel finds that Complainants have a specific common grievance against Respondent, and that it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation. The Panel finds that Complainants have a common legal interest. They are both wholly owned entities of the MBC group of companies. Complainant MBC IP FZ LLC owns numerous marks containing the element MBC. Complainant MBC FZ LLC is the owner and operator of all “MBC” television channels, and is the registrant of other marks. The disputed domain name comprises the MBC mark and reference to the “MBC Dream” television show. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainants are the target of common conduct by Respondent which has affected their individual legal interests in a similar fashion. See, for instance, Fulham Football Club (1987) Limited, Tottenham Hostpur Public Limited, West Ham United Football Club PLC, Manchester United Limited, The Liverpool Football Club And Athletic Grounds Limited v. Domains by Proxy, Inc./ Official Tickets Ltd , WIPO Case No. D2009-0331 . Accordingly, the Panel accepts Complainants’ request to consolidate the present proceedings pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 10(e). Complainants are hereinafter referred to as “Complainant”. 6.2 Substantive Issues Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires Complainant to make out all three of the following: (i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the MBC mark through registrations in the United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, European Union and numerous other jurisdictions. Complainant thereby satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. In comparing Complainant’s marks with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name comprises Complainant’s mark, followed by the dictionary term “dream.” It is the consensus view of UDRP panels that, where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark. Moreover, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain names, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , sections 1.7 and 1.8. It is the well-established view of UDRP panels that the country code Top-Level Domain “.cc” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (see WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11.1, and cases cited thereunder). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the evidence submitted by Complainant establishes a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not authorized by Complainant and has no rights in the MBC mark. The disputed domain name reflects Complainant’s mark in its entirety, thereby suggesting sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. Such use cannot confer rights or legitimate interests. See, for example, WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.5.1. Pursuant to WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1, and cases thereunder, where Complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not proved rights or legitimate interests. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor that there are any circumstances or activities that would establish Respondent’s rights therein. The disputed domain name redirected to a website using Complainant’s name and logo and referencing the name of its “MBC Dream” television show, and to other game-related websites. More recently, the disputed domain name redirects to a website at which Respondent identifies itself as “Modern Broadcast Company LLC” and offers for sale products used in the broadcast and media industries. The Panel is satisfied that such redirection has been created with the intention of diverting Internet users seeking information about Complainant’s “Dream” television show. Such use can never confer rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.13.1, and cases cited thereunder. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Complainant’s rights in its MBC mark predate the registration of the disputed domain name by at least 20 years. The disputed domain name reflects Complainant’s MBC mark in its entirety, together with the word “dream,” which implies affiliation with Complainant’s popular “MBC Dream” television show.” The Panel finds that the evidence supports a finding that Respondent was aware of Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent has demonstrated bad faith use of the disputed domain name. The evidence on record, while undated, was not challenged by Respondent. It supports a finding that Respondent has, by using the domain name to redirect to its website offering broadcasting products for sale and previously to websites offering contests, intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. One of the sites to which the disputed domain name previously resolved largely mimicked Complainant’s own contest website connected to the “MBC Dream” television show, including the use of Complainant’s logo and images. Such conduct is emblematic of bad faith use of the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.1.4. See also Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods , WIPO Case No. D2006-056; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Steve Powers, WIPO Case No. D2003-10`511. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established the third element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 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 <mbcdream.cc> be transferred to Complainant. Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa Sole Panelist Date: December 28, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around mbcdream.cc
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.