MGM Resorts International v 王平

WIPO Case No. D2024-3688

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

MGM Resorts International v. 王平

Case No. D2024-3688

1. The Parties

The Complainant is MGM Resorts International, United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Demys Limited, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is 王平, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <betmgm.bet> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 11,

2024. On September 12, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar

verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 12, 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 September

13, 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

September 17, 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 September 20, 2024. In accordance with the Rules,

paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 10, 2024. The Respondent sent email

communications to the Center on September 13 and 20, 2024. On October 11, 2024, the Center informed

the Parties that it would proceed with panel appointment.

page 2

The Center appointed Jeremy Speres as the sole panelist in this matter on October 22, 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 is a global gaming and entertainment company, operating hotels and casinos, meeting and

conference spaces, live and theatrical entertainment, as well as a selection of restaurants, nightlife, and retail

options since the 1960s.

In 2018, the Complainant ventured into the digital betting space with the launch of BetMGM, a gaming,

casino and online sports betting platform. The brand operates both online and within the Complainant’s

network of casinos in the United States and the United Kingdom.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for its BetMGM mark, including United States

Trademark Registration No. 6025462 BETMGM in classes 9 and 41, with a registration date of March 31,

2020.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 30, 2024, and currently redirects to a website stating

that the disputed domain name “is not properly configured”. The Complainant’s evidence establishes that

the disputed domain name previously redirected to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale for

USD 9,000.

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 Respondent registered the

disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights primarily for the purpose of

selling it to the Complainant, or a competitor, for a price exceeding its out-of-pocket costs related to the

disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

communications, the Respondent denied having registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The following statement by the Respondent characterizes their response:

“There is no confusion between my domain name and the company's brand, trademark, etc. Although there

may be some similarities in the domain name, it is not enough to constitute confusion. My domain name has

its unique meaning and purpose, which is clearly different from the company’s business and brand image.”

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.

page 3

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

the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel also accepts that the Complainant’s evidence

establishes that its BetMGM mark was well known and enjoyed common law rights prior to registration of the

disputed domain name.

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. Generally speaking,

UDRP panels have found that domain names identical to a complainant’s trademark, as in this case, carry a

high risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Complainant’s BetMGM mark was in

use and well known prior to registration of the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name is identical

to the Complainant’s mark and the Complainant has certified that the disputed domain name is unauthorized

by it. The Respondent has not meaningfully 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.

For the reasons addressed below in relation to bad faith, it is likely that the Respondent intended to sell the

disputed domain name to the Complainant or a competitor, which cannot confer rights or legitimate interests.

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.

For the following reasons, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Respondent registered and

has used the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the

disputed domain name to the Complainant or to a competitor for valuable consideration in excess of the

Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name, falling squarely within

paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.

UDRP panels have consistently found that the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a

well-known trademark, as in this case, can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0,

section 3.1.4. The Respondent has failed to meaningfully rebut this presumption. The chosen Top-Level

page 4

domain (“TLD”) “.bet” clearly relates to the industry in which the Complainant uses its BetMGM mark and in

which it is well known, which strongly points to targeting. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Internet searches for the Second-Level portion of the disputed domain name return results exclusively

relating to the Complainant’s offering. Combined with the notoriety of the Complainant’s mark, which

comprises the entirety of the disputed domain name, this indicates that there is no conceivable good faith

use for the disputed domain name, which again points to targeting. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

Here the disputed domain name was offered for sale for an amount which is likely, without evidence from the

Respondent to the contrary, in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses relating directly to the

disputed domain name. When a domain name is identical to a distinctive mark, as is the case here, panels

are skeptical of claims that a domain name was merely registered for legitimate speculation as opposed to

targeting a specific brand owner. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.1.

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 <betmgm.bet> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Jeremy Speres/

Jeremy Speres

Sole Panelist

Date: October 28, 2024