Optibet SIA v Adrian Carlos Benitez Ribeiro

WIPO Case No. D2024-3393

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Optibet SIA v. Adrian Carlos Benitez Ribeiro

Case No. D2024-3393

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Optibet SIA, Latvia, represented by Abion AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Adrian Carlos Benitez Ribeiro, Spain.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 19, 2024.

On August 19, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in

connection with the disputed domain name. On August 20, 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, Privacy service provided by Withheld for

Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the

Complainant on August 21, 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 August 22, 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 August 22, 2024. In accordance with the Rules,

paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 11, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 14, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on September 23, 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 has operated an online casino since 1999. It owns several trademark registrations

consisting of or containing OPTIBET, including European Union Trademark Registration No. 018889868

(registered on October 11, 2023) for the composite image and word trademark OPTIBET, and International

Trademark Registration No. 1038387 (registered on March 15, 2010, and designating more than 30

countries) for the word trademark OPTIBET.

The Complainant asserted it is the owner of the domain name <optibet.com>. However, the evidence

provided in support of this assertion shows the owner is BestBet Limited. The relationship (if any) between

the Complainant and BestBet Limited was not explained.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 14, 2024. The Complainant provided a screenshot taken

on August 16, 2024, showing the disputed domain name resolved to a website that appears to be for an

online casino. At the top of the website is a figurative mark that is identical to the Complainant’s composite

OPITBET trademark, except that the word element is set to the right hand side of the image element rather

than underneath it. As of the date of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a website which

appears to be the same as the one shown in the screenshot.

On June 25, 2024 the Complainant’s representative sent a cease and desist letter to Registrar’s abuse email

address, for forwarding to the Respondent. The Respondent did not respond to the letter.

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.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the

Complainant’s registered word trademark on the following grounds The disputed domain name incorporates

the Complainant’s trademark in full, adding no additional elements that would distinguish it from the

Complainant’s trademark. The use of “ink” as the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) should merely be

viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such should be disregarded when assessing

identicality or confusing similarity under the first element.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the

disputed domain name on the following grounds. The Respondent has not been authorized by the

Complainant to use its OPTIBET trademark, and the Respondent does not, to the Complainant’s knowledge,

own any trademark rights in OPTIBET. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by

the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent has made any legitimate use of the disputed domain

name. Using the disputed domain name for a website containing the Complainant’s trademark is misleading

as to the commercial source of the disputed domain name and risks tarnishing the Complainant’s trademark.

The Respondent cannot establish rights in the disputed domain name as they have not used it in connection

with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The fact that the

Respondent never answered the Complainant’s communications, and registered the disputed domain name

with a privacy shield service, are additional indicators that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest

in respect of the disputed domain name.

page 3

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in

bad faith on the following grounds. The Complainant has received exposure under its OPTIBET trademark,

both through its own marketing channels and its official website at “ The Complainant’s

OPTIBET trademark was registered several years before the creation of the disputed domain name.

Considering that the Complainant is a well-known company and the holder of a reputed trademark, with a

substantial and widespread reputation, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent chose the disputed domain

name without knowledge of the Complainant’s activities and trademark. Bearing in mind the high degree of

similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s registered trademark, as well as the

recognizability of the trademark, it ought to be presumed that the Respondent has chosen the disputed

domain name because it is confusingly similar. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a

website that contains the Complainant’s trademark and is offering services in the Complainant’s area of

business. These are distinct indications that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain

name in bad faith to attract attention to their website for commercial gain. Despite being given the

opportunity to either transfer the disputed domain name or provide a reasonable explanation as to their

choice to register the disputed domain name and its current use, the Respondent actively chose not to reply

to the arguments presented in the cease and desist letter. This is behaviour that constitutes further evidence

of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. All the above-mentioned circumstances

strongly suggest that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 hreshold) 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. It is the owner of a trademark registration for the word trademark

OPTIBET.

Once the gTLD is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the entirety of the Complainant’s word

trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, with no additional elements. Accordingly, the

disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark 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

page 4

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.

The Panel considers that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation

with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Also, the evidence establishes that the

Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which seeks to impersonate the

Complainant by reproducing the Complainant’s trademark and offering services of the same type as the

services that the Complainant provides under its trademark. Panels have held that the use of a domain

name for illegal activity, such as impersonation, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a

respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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 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: (i) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name more

than a decade after the Complainant first registered its OPTIBET trademark; (ii) the disputed domain name

incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, and merely adds the gTLD “ink”; and (iii) the

Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website displaying the Complainant’s

trademark and offering services of the same type as those offered by the Complainant, thereby falsely giving

the impression the Respondent either is, or is associated with, the Complainant. It is clear the Respondent

registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark.

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.

The evidence shows that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an intentional attempt to

attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the

Complainant’s trademark. 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 <optibet.ink> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Andrew F. Christie/

Andrew F. Christie

Sole Panelist

Date: October 6, 2024