Administrative Panel Decision; 978 Tech N. v v Quoc Sam Lam

WIPO Case No. D2023-4809

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
978 Tech N. V. v. QUOC SAM LAM

Case No. D2023-4809

1. The Parties

The Complainant is 978 Tech N. V., Curaçao, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), represented by Justec Legal

Advisory Services LLC, United States of America (“United States”).

The Respondent is QUOC SAM LAM, Viet Nam.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <8xbet.kim> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 20, 2023. On November 21, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 5, 2023, 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 (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on the same date, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 6, 2023.

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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 8, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 28, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 3, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on January 25, 2024. 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 claims that it has operated a gambling website at “ under the unregistered
mark 8XBET since January 2022. The Complainant is one of the major sponsors of Manchester City

Football Club. See further under section 6A below.

On May 16, 2023, the Complainant applied under serial no. 97939901 for a United States trade mark for

8XBET in class 41.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 15, 2023.

As of November 11, 2023, the disputed domain name resolved to a Vietnamese-language website branded
“8XBET”, with a very similar logo and colour scheme to that of the Complainant, and which referred to the

Complainant’s website and appeared to offer gambling-related services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:

- the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant
has rights;

- 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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Panel finds the Complainant has established unregistered trade mark or service mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3. The Complainant claims, and the Panel has been able to verify via independent research, that it is one of the major sponsors of Manchester City Football Club which has won the UEFA Champions League for the 2022/2023 season. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s 8XBET trade mark. The Respondent’s website prominently displays the trade

page 3

mark with a very similar colour scheme to that of the Complainant, and explicitly references the has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the Complainant’s gambling services. The fact that the Respondent is targeting the Complainant’s trade mark (see section 6C below), supports the finding that the mark has achieved significance as a source identifier.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Furthermore, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, claimed
impersonation) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section

2.13.1.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, claimed impersonation) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

As mentioned in section 4 above, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a website that set
out to impersonate the Complainant including by use of a logo and colour scheme very similar to that of the

Complainant. Plainly this was for an illicit purpose of some sort.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 4

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 <8xbet.kim> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: February 7, 2024