Navasard Limited v Alveni
WIPO Case No. D2024-5250
•03-02-2025
| ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Navasard Limited v. Alveni
Case No. D2024-5250
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Navasard Limited, Cyprus, represented by Pavlo Korchemliuk, Cyprus.
The Respondent is Alveni, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <1xperience.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom, LLC (the
“Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 20, 2024. On December 20, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 20, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 23, 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 amendment to the Complaint on December 30, 2024.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 January 6, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was January 26, 2025. The Response was filed with the Center on January 9,
page 2
The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on January 20, 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 a company registered in Cyprus providing online betting services, licensed in Curaçao,
Netherlands (Kingdom of the). It operates at a number of websites including “ but these are
not accessible from the United States, the United Kingdom, or from a number of other jurisdictions. The
Complainant states that it began offering its services online from September 2006, but was incorporated in
2015.
The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the following European Union trademarks: number
013914254 1XBET logo registered on July 27, 2015; number 014227681 1XBET wordmark registered on
September 21, 2015; and number 018669987 1X logo registered on June 22, 2022.
The Domain Name was registered on July 23, 2018. It resolves to a website at “ purportedly offering “Luxury tailor-made VIP experiences for unique people”. An Internet search discloses that the Respondent operates a website at “ which states that it was founded in 2003 and that “Our company focuses on self-service, interactive kiosks & digital signage solutions”.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its 1XBET and 1X trademarks,
that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the
Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
Notably, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name incorporates the “1X” prefix which is a key component of its trademarks and the most widely recognized element of its business, and that the similarity between the Domain Name and its trademarks is sufficient enough to cause confusion amongst consumers. It complains that the use of “1X” directly infringes on its registered trademarks.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not making any noncommercial or fair use of the Domain
Name. Rather, “the Respondent is potentially illegally using the Disputed Domain for purposes of potentially
re-selling the Disputed Domain at a profit by taking advantage of the confusing similarity of the Disputed
Domain name with the popular sports betting trademark held by the Complainant”.
So far as bad faith is concerned, the Complainant relies on the fact that previous panels have found that “the apparent lack of so-called active use (e.g., to resolve to a website) of the domain name or without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder (passive holding), does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith”.
B. Respondent
The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name.
The Respondent claims that at the time of registration of the Domain Name the only trademark related to the
1XBET brand was registered in the United Kingdom and that at the time of filing the Response, 1X is not
registered by the Complainant in the United States.
page 3
The Respondent states that the Domain Name was established in 2018, and that it specializes in tailor-made VIP experiences for small groups of people who value luxury, top quality, personalized service. It has no association with online casinos, gambling or betting. The Respondent draws the distinction between the letter “x” in the Domain Name being integrated as part of the word “experience” to form the cohesive brand name “1xperience” in combination with the number “1”, whereas in the Complainant’s name “1x” is not part of a word, but rather an entirely independent element within the name “1xbet”.
The Respondent denies that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith. It denies that it had any knowledge of the online gambling business operated by the Complainant from Cyprus at the time of registration of the Domain Name, and points out that attempting to access “ from the United States is blocked.
The Respondent asserts that it does not attempt to impersonate or mislead customers into associating with 1XBET or any other brand and that the “1X” element is generic. Furthermore, the Domain Name is not being used to redirect traffic to websites related to gambling or casinos but exclusively supports its business activities which are entirely unrelated to the Complainant’s services.
The Respondent finally submits that the actions of the Complainant, in attempting to challenge any company that incorporates “1X” in their name, logo, or mark across any industry worldwide, appear to constitute an abuse of intellectual property rights.
6. Discussion and Findings
For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) the 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.
The issue of confusing similarity is finely balanced. The Complainant has shown rights in the trademarks
1XBET and 1X. In both cases, the distinctive element is “1X”. However, from a semantic point of view, the
Domain Name is likely to be read by users as “one experience” and not therefore obviously confused with
“1X”. On the other hand, the “1X” element is present at the beginning of the Domain Name.
The Panel recognizes that the entirety of the Complainant’s 1X mark is reproduced within the Domain Name, and that the first element is typically regarded as being a relatively low threshold test. For the purpose of considering standing, therefore, the Panel accepts, on balance, that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and that the first element of the Policy has been established. (Here, it is noted that this is not to be confused with a “likelihood of confusion” that is discussed below.)
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.
page 4
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. Where, therefore, 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.
| “ website to which the Domain Name resolves. A search of the Wayback Machine at | Surprisingly, in its submission as to the second element, the Complainant makes no mention of the logo in the banner of the web pages: |
| |
| Although the Panel has some doubts as to how active is the 1XPERIENCE business of the Respondent, the Complainant has failed to establish even a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and not addressed any case it might have arising from the nature of the “ website. | |
| In the circumstances, in the absence of any challenge by the Complainant, the Panel finds that, before notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2. | |
| The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has not been established. | |
| C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith | |
| in light of its findings below. | |
| Although, accordingly, it is not strictly necessary to do so, the Panel will go on to consider the third element since at least August 2018, it is incomprehensible that the Complainant has simply relied on the non-use of the Domain Name. | |
| 1 Noting the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, panels may undertake limited | |
| factual research into matters of public record if they would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), section 4.8. |
page 5
So far as registration in bad faith is concerned, the Complainant has failed to establish that the Respondent
must have had the Complainant and its rights in the 1XBET and 1X marks in mind when it registered the
Domain Name. There has been no evidence that its business would have been well-known in the United
States in 2018 and, in any event, because of regulatory restrictions, access to the Complainant’s websites
from the United States is blocked. It has not therefore been established that the Respondent registered the
Domain Name in bad faith.
Turning to bad faith use, it is obvious that the Complainant cannot simply rely on passive use since there has been active use. Not only that, but the Complainant misconstrues the nature of the passive holding doctrine far too broadly – mere non-use is not enough; there must be some notion of an evocation of the
complainant’s mark which is not the case here given the pronunciation and use of the “one experience”
moniker.
In relation to use, although the website at the Domain Name does not indicate bustling activity of a genuine business, there is no evidence of the Respondent in any way taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights in its trademarks or confusing Internet users into believing that the Domain Name is operated by or
authorised by the Complainant. It appears to the Panel to be inconceivable that Internet users looking for the
Complainant’s online gambling sites would enter the search term “1xperience”, and highly unlikely that any
user searching for 1XBET (whether using the search term “1x” or “1xbet”) would expect
“ to have any connection with 1XBET if it did appear in the search results.
The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established.
D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if after considering the submissions, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad
faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.16.
The Panel recognizes that the Complainant is unrepresented, but it is an online gambling business that is
bound to have careful regard to Internet related procedural and regulatory issues. The Panel also notes that
it has been filing a substantial number of UDRP complaints and is therefore familiar with the procedure. The
Complaint is sparse and inexplicably makes no reference to the website that has been operated by the
Respondent for at least six years, on the face of it at least offering bona fide services. Furthermore, when
notified of the identity of the Respondent in the United States it made no attempt substantively to amend the
Complaint or to address issues around the non-availability of the Complainant’s online betting services in the
United States.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complaint had no real prospects of success, that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, and that it constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. Moreover, the Panel finds that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
/Ian Lowe/
Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: February 3, 2025
0
0
0