Navasard Limited v Xavier Tene

WIPO Case No. D2024-0637

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Navasard Limited v. Xavier Tene

Case No. D2024-0637

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Navasard Limited, Cyprus, internally represented.

The Respondent is Xavier Tene, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <1xbet.bot> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 12,
2024. On February 12, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 13, 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 February 14, 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 February

14, 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 February 21, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 12, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 14, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on March 25, 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 an online sports betting company, particularly recognized in the eastern Europe. The
Complainant has existed since March 9, 2015.

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the sport betting mark 1XBET, such as European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) trademarks number 013914254, registered July 27, 2015, and number 014227681, registered September 21, 2015.

The Complainant operates a domain name that hosts its website “

The disputed domain name was registered on November 9, 2023. At the time of drafting the decision, the disputed domain name was not in use.

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 is confusingly similar to its marks;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name;

- the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant to succeed must satisfy the panel that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
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 was 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 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 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. 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 disputed domain name is not in use. However, in case of a future use, this Panel sees no conceivable fair use of a domain name containing the entire trademark of the Complainant, which is a distinctive term.

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 chose not to respond to the Complaint and the Complainant’s contentions and provide any explanation why it registered a domain name identical to the Complainant’s trademark. In view of the Panel, the only logical rationale for the Respondent’s replication of

the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name was to target the Complainant.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

As mentioned above, there is no evidence that the disputed domain name has resolved to an active site. prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith uses to which the domain name may be put. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

page 4

Having reviewed the record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, and the apparent provision of false registration details1, 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.

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 <1xbet.bot> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Pablo A. Palazzi/
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist

Date: April 8, 2024.

1 The Panel notes that the disclosed contact details for the Respondent refer to an existing marketing consultancy in the United States,

by a name other than that of Respondent, and that, despite such address being in existence, the Center’s written communication was
ultimately rerouted to a different address in an entirely different state, inferring that such contact details were fraudulently used and were
not actually in connection with the disclosed Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.8, on limited factual research undertaken
by UDRP panels further to their general powers.