Optibet SIA v 任艺伟 (Yi Wei Ren)

WIPO Case No. DME2025-0004

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Optibet SIA v. 任艺伟 (Yi Wei Ren)

Case No. DME2025-0004

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is 任艺伟 (Yi Wei Ren), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <optibet.me> is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology

Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 7, 2025, 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 (Redirected for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 7, 2025, 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 in English on February 10, 2025.

On February 7, 2025, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On February 10, 2025, the Complainant confirmed its request that English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission.

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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 10, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 2, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 3, 2025.

The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on March 5, 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 owns and operates an online casino since 1999 under the brand OPTIBET. It has a strong presence in the Baltic States.

The Complainant has trade mark registrations for OPTIBET including the following:

- International Trade Mark Registration No. 1038387 for OPTIBET, registered on March 15, 2010;

- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 017445982 for OPTIBET & Device, registered on

February 26, 2018; and

- Latvian Trade Mark Registration No. M73510 for OPTIBET & Device, registered on December 20,

2018.

(Individually and collectively, the “Trade Mark”).

The Complainant’s website is at the domain name <optibet.lv>.

The Respondent who appears to be based in China registered the disputed domain name on November 13, 2024. The disputed domain name redirects to the “ parking page where it is offered for sale for a “Buy Now” price of USD 1,450 (the “Website”). The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to

via the Registrar the Respondent on December 12, 2024, but did not receive any response.

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 identical to the Trade Mark, that the disputed domain name was 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. Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the
Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise

page 3

in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the

registration agreement.

The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be
English for the following main reasons:

- if the Complainant has to translate the Complaint into a different language, it would mean significant additional costs and delay in the proceedings;

- the disputed domain name redirects to “ which is an American provider of Internet

services where English in the language of communication and the price offered for the sale of the disputed
domain name is in USD;

- it is likely that both parties are familiar with the English language due to its widespread use in

international business and commerce; and

- the Respondent has been involved in previous UDRP proceedings brought by third party brand owners (Syngenta Participations AG v. 任艺伟 (Yi Wei Ren), WIPO Case No. D2024-0982; Mölnlycke Health Care AB v. 任艺伟 (Yi Wei Ren), WIPO Case No. D2024-4671; and Syensqo S.A. v. 任艺伟 (Yi Wei

Ren), WIPO Case No. D2024-4743, where the respective panels determined that English was the language of the proceeding.

The Respondent has not challenged the Complainant’s language request and despite being notified of the case in both Chinese and English in fact has failed to file a response in either English or Chinese.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for identity or confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s Trade Mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

C. 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

While 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 often impossible 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. 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 record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the 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.

Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name, which is not only identical to the Trade Mark but also identical to the second-level of the Complainant’s own domain name. This is inherently misleading as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

D. 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 knew or should have known of the Trade Mark when he registered the disputed domain name given that the Trade Mark was registered and used prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. It is therefore more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name.

In the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2 states as follows:

“Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in
circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a
respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark (particularly in the case of domainers),
panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should
have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. Further
factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name,
or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s

mark.”

The fact that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with the Respondent’s choice
of the disputed domain name without any explanation is also a significant factor to consider (as stated in
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1). The disputed domain name falls into the category stated above and the
Panel finds that registration is in bad faith.

The disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is being offered for sale by the Respondent on a domain name marketplace for a sum which likely exceeds the costs directly related to the registration of the disputed domain name. This is evidence that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling as set out in paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.

page 5

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Further, the Panel also notes that the Respondent has been on the wrong side of other UDRP cases concerning third party brand owners which have resulted in the domain names being ordered to be transferred (see section 4 above). This is an indication that the Respondent is a serial cybersquatter and is engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct which is an example of bad faith contained in paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.2).

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 <optibet.me> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Karen Fong/ Karen Fong Sole Panelist Date: March 18, 2025