BML Group Limited, Betsson Services Limited v Juan Sandoval

WIPO Case No. DCO2025-0001

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

BML Group Limited, Betsson Services Limited v. Juan Sandoval

Case No. DCO2025-0001

1. The Parties

The Complainants are BML Group Limited and Betsson Services Limited, Malta (together, the

“Complainant”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Juan Sandoval, Colombia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <betsson.com.co> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 6, 2025. On January 6, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 7, 2025, 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 (Whois Privacy Protection Foundation) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on January 9, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on January 10, 2025.

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 January 14, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 3, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 7, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on February 12, 2025. 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.

The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainants or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.

Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to [the] Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent.

The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainants are BML Group Limited and Betsson Services Limited, both Maltese companies belonging to the Betsson Group, one of the largest online gaming companies in Europe (hereinafter “the Complainant”), and owning several trademark registrations for BETSSON, among which:

- International Trademark Registration No. 1494220 for BETSSON, registered on September 10, 2019, also

extended to Colombia;

- United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00906517056 for BETSSON, registered on September 30,

2008;

- European Union Trademark Registration No. 006517056 for BETSSON, registered on September 30, 2008.

The Complainant also operates on the Internet, being “ its main website.

The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.

According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on May 31, 2023, and it resolves to a parking page provided by Hostinger. The Respondent previously redirected the disputed domain name to its own betting website, and offered it for sale.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

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

Notably, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark BETSSON.

Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate

page 3

noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Although the Respondent has been an affiliate by any similar trademark or domain name which is similar to any trademark, domain name or brand used by or registered in the name of any member of Betsson Group, or any other name that could be understood to designate Betsson Group or any Betsson Group brand”. As a result of this infraction, together with the fact that the Respondent redirected the disputed domain name to its own betting website, the Respondent’s Betsson account was closed by the Complainant.
registering a Betsson account through the Complainant’s affiliation program, the Terms and Conditions of the

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark BETSSON is distinctive and well-known in the field of online gaming. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name to divert customers by creating confusion about the origin of the services and thus tarnishing the Complainant’s trademark and damaging the Complainant’s image and reputation, qualifies as bad faith registration and use. The Complainant contends that also the current passive holding of the disputed domain name qualifies as bad faith registration and use.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record.

A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:

(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.

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 trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the BETSSON 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.

It is well accepted that a country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”), in this case “.com.co”, is typically ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

page 4

Based on the available record, 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.

While 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 often impossible 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. 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 record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the 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.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark BETSSON in the field of online gaming is clearly established, and the Panel finds that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant, and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, especially because the Respondent was an affiliate of the Complainant’s Betsson program.

The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name was also being used in bad faith since the
Respondent, by redirecting the disputed domain name to its own betting website, was trying to attract
Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the
disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement, an activity clearly detrimental to the
Complainant’s business.

The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and was using the disputed domain name in order both to disrupt the Complainant’s business, and to attract Internet users to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

As regards the current use of the disputed domain name, being resolving to a parking page, panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed

the record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark in the field of online gaming, the
prior use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, the nature of the disputed domain name (which is

page 5

identical to the Complainant’s trademark, as well as to the Complainant’s main website “ and the failure of the Respondent to submit a response, and finds that in the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

Furthermore, the Panel considers that the nature of the inherently misleading disputed domain name, which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, further supports a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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, <betsson.com.co>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Edoardo Fano/
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: February 19, 2025