beIN Media Group LLC v Ahmed Ali

WIPO Case No. DME2022-0019

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

beIN Media Group LLC v. Ahmed Ali

Case No. DME2022-0019

1. The Parties

The Complainant is beIN Media Group LLC, Qatar, represented by Tmark Conseils, France.

The Respondent is Ahmed Ali, Algeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <beinmatch.me> 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 20, 2022. On September 21, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 22, 2022, 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 September 22, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 12, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 13, 2022.

The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on October 24, 2022. 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an international media group based in Qatar offering subscriptions to TV channels,
websites and mobile apps in numerous countries worldwide. It was originally created in 2003 as Al Jazeera

Sport and changed its name in 2012 to be IN Sport.

The Complainant owns numerous trademarks registrations for its trademark BEIN, inter alia, the European

Union Trademark BEIN (No. 010617058 registered on June 15, 2012).

The Complainant also holds several domain names, including the domain names <bein.com> and

<beinsports.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 2, 2020.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website in Arabic language reproducing the Complainant’s trademark and providing football related content as well as links to products advertising and dating sites.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends as follows:

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BEIN trademark in which the Complainant has rights, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the word “match” is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity but rather exacerbates it, because the word “match” is an unambiguous reference to the sports content provided by the Complainant. The country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.me” is not relevant to the determination of confusing similarity, as they are disregarded when considering whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the earlier trademarks.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The mark BEIN is internationally well-known and is associated with the Complainant, since this trademark has been extensively used to identify the Complainant and its media services. The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use this trademark and there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use, or demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because it is obvious that the registered the disputed domain name, and because the redirection to a website reproducing the Complainant’s trademark and providing football related content as well as links to product advertising and dating sites constitutes use in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the

page 3

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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant owns trademark registrations for its BEIN trademark in numerous jurisdictions.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates the BEIN trademark in its entirety. The
addition of the word “match” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview
3.0”), section 1.8.

The ccTLD “.me” is disregarded when considering whether the respective disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the earlier trademarks.

For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the

Complainant’s mark BEIN.

The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant states it has not authorized the Respondent to use the trademark BEIN and that before notice of the dispute, there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use, or demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain name in good faith. The Panel does not see any contrary evidence from the record.

In the view of the Panel, the Complainant has succeeded in raising a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For its part, the Respondent failed to provide any explanations as to any rights or legitimate interests. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that its BEIN trademark is internationally well- known.

In the view of the Panel, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s well-known trademark, particularly considering that the word “match” is an unambiguous reference to the sports content provided by the Complainant. In the

circumstances of this case, this is evidence of registration in bad faith.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website reproducing the Complainant’s trademark and providing football related content as well as links to advertising for third-party products and to dating sites. By using the confusingly similar disputed domain name to display related content to Complainant’s business, without

any explanation of the lack of relationship to the Complainant, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to bad faith according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the

page 4

Furthermore, the Respondent furnished incomplete contact information while registering the disputed domain name, evidenced by the inability of the courier to deliver the Center’s written communication to the address disclosed by the Registrar for the Respondent.

The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met.

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 <beinmatch.me> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Andrea Mondini/
Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: November 8, 2022