Elec Games Ltd. v Nicolas Canteros Alvarez

WIPO Case No. D2024-5224

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Elec Games Ltd. v. Nicolas Canteros Alvarez

Case No. D2024-5224

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Elec Games Ltd., Malta, represented by Abion AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Nicolas Canteros Alvarez, Argentina.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <boostcasinos.bet> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 19, 2024. On December 19, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 19, 2024, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 20, 2024, 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 23, 2024.

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 24, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 13, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 15, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on January 23, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the owner of the mark BOOST CASINO registered since 2018 as follows:

-European trademark registration number 017754681 registered on May 18, 2018, in classes 9, 38 and 41;

-UK trademark registration No. UK00917754681 registered on May 18, 2018, in classes 9, 38, and 41; and

- Norwegian trademark registration number 201801536 in class 41.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 2, 2024, and has been used for competing casino services using the Complainant’s mark BOOST CASINO correctly spelled in its masthead.

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 contends that the disputed domain name registered in 2024 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s prior BOOST CASINO mark fully incorporating the Complainant’s mark and adding a single letter “s” and the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) .bet.

The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant or commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name points to a site that offers competing services to cause confusion and impersonate the Complainant. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial legitimate or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith confusing Internet users.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“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.

page 3

The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name merely adding an extra letter “s”.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.

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.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorised by the

Complainant.

The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to offer competing services using the Complainant’s association with the Complainant.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here impersonation/passing off, 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

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, the Panel notes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to offer competing services using the Complainant’s word mark spelled correctly as a masthead without making it clear that there is no association with the Complainant. As such the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark and has disrupted the Complainant’s business by competing behaviour.

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.

page 4

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here impersonation/passing off 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.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <boostcasinos.bet> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Dawn Osborne/
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: January 31, 2025