Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0367.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:24:17+00:00

Document:
Stanworth Development Limited v. Dotster, Inc.
The Complainant is Stanworth Development Limited, Isle of Man, of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Bowman Gilfillan Inc., South Africa.
The Respondent is Dotster, Inc., Vancouver, Washington, United States of America.
The disputed domain name <redriverbellecasino.com> is registered with Secura GmbH.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 3, 2008. On March 10, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Secura GmbH a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On March 17, 2008, Secura GmbH transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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”).
On April 22, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Secura GmbH a request in connection with Paragraph 3.7.5.7. of the ICANN Expired Domain Deletion Policy. On April 22, 2008, Secura GmbH transmitted by email to the Center its confirmation to place and to keep the domain name under Registrar LOCK status. On April 22, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to the Complainant a notification regarding the communications exchanged with Secura GmbH.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 28, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 17, 2008. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 18, 2008.
The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on May 2, 2008. 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.
The Complainant is the owner of a number of pending and registered trade marks consisting of or incorporating the words “River Belle” in various jurisdictions including Australia, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America in class 41 covering entertainment services, namely, providing on-line games of chance, games of skill and casino-style gaming services rendered on-line.
The Complainant is also owner of a number of domain names consisting of or incorporating the words “River Belle”.
The Respondent registered the domain name <redriverbellecasino.com> on December 30, 2004.
The Complainant points out that its trade marks are used i.a through its licensee Carmen Media Group Limited.
The Complainant states that its licensee operates under the RIVER BELLE trade mark an online gaming site, all benefits arising out of the use of the trade marks by the Licensee inures to the benefit of the Complainant.
The Complainant emphasizes that the gaming site, “www.riverbelle.com”, was conceptualised in August 1997 and officially launched in December 1997. The Complainant contends that the “www.riverbelle.com” gaming site has established itself as one of the most highly recognized online gaming brands currently available.
The Complainant informs the Panel that the “www.riverbelle.com” gaming site receives in the region of 250 000 (two hundred and fifty thousand) visitors and facilitates over 25, 000 (twenty five thousand) software downloads each month. In addition, many thousands of registered players regularly make use of the <riverbelle.com> gaming site with a substantial portion being active on the site at any given time. An amount in excess of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand US Dollars) per month is spent on various advertising, marketing and other promotional activities, including banner listings on portal sites and search engines, direct mailing campaigns, affiliate programs, print ads, TV commercials and infomercials.
The Complainant asserts that the RIVER BELLE trade mark is very well known in relation to the provision of on-line games of chance and casino-style gaming services and that the words “River Belle” serve as a unique and distinctive element, which element is a determinative and well-known designation of source for the Complainant’s online casino and gaming related services.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name combines the Complainant’s entire distinctive RIVER BELLE trade mark with a second term “red”, which is non-distinctive and descriptive. In view of the Complainant, the inclusion of the word “red” still yields a domain name that is a visual equivalent to the Complainant’s RIVER BELLE mark. The Complainant infers from the above that the contested domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark RIVER BELLE.
The Complainant contends that there is a substantial likelihood between the disputed domain name and the trade mark THE RIVER BELLE ONLINE CASINO trade mark. The Complainant asserts that Internet users will be confused into believing that there is some affiliation, connection, sponsorship, approval or association between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, there is no such relationship.
With reference to rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Complainant states that the contested domain name is passively held since its registration and that such passive use does not constitute a legitimate non-commercial or fair use without any intent to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant or the Licensee, and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s RIVER BELLE mark, or marks confusingly similar to this mark, in a domain name or in any manner whatsoever.
The Complainant underlines that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not acquired any trade mark or service mark rights in and to the disputed domain name.
With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith the Complainant indicates that the RIVER BELLE trade mark is well known in relation to gaming and casino services, especially if one considers that the Complainant’s “www.riverbelle.com” gaming site has been in operation since at least late 1997.
The Complainant asserts that it is therefore highly unlikely that the Respondent just happened to unintentionally select the Complainant’s distinctive RIVER BELLE trade marks and inadvertently incorporate them into its selected domain name.
The Complainant states that it is most likely that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s RIVER BELLE trade mark rights and its reputation in the gaming and casino industry when registering the disputed domain name.
The Complainant asserts that the registration of the disputed domain name occurred nearly seven years subsequent to the Complainant commencing operation of its “www.riverbelle.com” gaming site and subsequent to the success of the Complainant’s River Belle goods and services.
The Complainant states that there is no prominently displayed disclaimer on the Respondent’s website, permitting Internet users to know the precise relationship, if any, between the Respondent and the Complainant.
The Complainant underlines that the disputed domain name is not the only name which the Respondent can use to describe its business and the Respondent could have used any number of other domain names to describe its business.
As an additional circumstance evidencing bad faith in the use of the domain name, the Complainant highlights that the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter thus adopting by silence the material allegations made by the Complainant regarding the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name.
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of a number of trade mark registration consisting in or comprising the RIVER BELLE.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade marks owned by the Complainant. Pursuant to a number of prior decisions rendered under the Policy the addition of descriptive terms to a trademark is not a distinguishing feature.
Therefore, the mere addition of the words “red” and “casino” does not exclude the likelihood of confusion between the domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark.
It is well established in prior decisions that the addition of descriptive terms to a trademark is not a distinguishing feature, inter alia, Barry D. Sears, Ph.D. v. YY / Yi Yanlin, WIPO Case No. D2007-0286 (“diet” added to ZONE mark); Fry’s Electronics, Inc. v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case No. D2006-1435 (“electronics” added to FRY mark); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Henry Chan, WIPO Case No. D2004-0056 (“chase”, “girlsof”, “jobsat”, “sams”, “application”, “blackfriday”, “blitz”, “books”, “career(s)”, “check”, “flw”, “foundation”, “games”, “mart”, “photostudio”, “pictures”, “portrait”, “portraitstudio(s)”, “registry”, “retaillink” and “wire” added to WALMART mark); PepsiCo, Inc. v. Henry Chan, WIPO Case No. D2004-0033 (“chart”, “music”, “arena”, “sweep”, “nfl” and “coliseum” added to PEPSI mark); International Organization for Standardization ISO v. Quality Practitioners Institute and Web site Pros, Inc. and Quality, WIPO Case No. D2005-1028 (“net” and “training” added to ISO mark); Banca Intesa S.p.A. v. Roshan Wickramaratna, WIPO Case No. D2006-0215 (“online” added to BANCAINTESA mark).
More in particular, the word “casino” should be regarded along the lines of the interpretation adopted in all the prior decisions mentioned above especially as it is likely to increase the likelihood of confusion in the context of the online games.
Indeed the word “casino” is descriptive of Complainant’s business See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler A.G. v. Donald Drummonds, WIPO Case No. D2001-0160; Microsoft Corp. v. StepWeb, WIPO Case No. D2000-1500.
See along these lines Stanworth Development Limited v. Kaneoka Senuchi, WIPO Case No. D2005-0703, Stanworth Development Limited v. 3748431 Canada Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0655 and Stanworth Development Limited v. Michael Rand, WIPO Case No. D2008-0158 where thepanel found that “the Respondent’s Domain Name <riverbellecasin.com> contains the Complainant’s trade mark RIVER BELLE in toto and the suffix “casin”. Taking into account that the suffix is an obvious misspelling of the word “casino”, the suffix does not only not prevent consumer confusion but is on the contrary suggestive of the services that the trademark is registered for (gaming services)”.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Indeed there is no relation, disclosed to the Panel or otherwise apparent, between the Respondent and the Complainant. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has the Respondent otherwise obtained an authorization to use Complainant’s trade marks and name under any circumstance and to sell Complainant’s products.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
(v) service on the holder’s website or location.
As to bad faith at the time of the registration the Panel notes that in light of the intense use of the trademark since 1997 and of the fact that the trade mark is being widely publicized globally and constantly featured throughout the Internet, the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trade marks.
As in Gateway, Inc. v. Lorna Kang WIPO Case No. D2003-0257, this Panel shares the view of a number of panel findings of “opportunistic bad faith” in the registration of renowned or even somewhat less famous trade marks. As stated inter alia in DHL Operations B.V v. Net Marketing Group, WIPO Case No. D2005-0868 “It is obvious that the value and goodwill, of the Complainant’s mark DHL which has an extensive world wide recognition, would have been known to the Respondent at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The registration and use of the mark by an entity unconnected to the Complainant gives rise to the presumption of opportunistic bad faith”.
With reference to the issue of the non use of the domain name by Respondent, the Panel finds that in this case the “passive holding” infers bad faith. As also established in a number of prior cases the concept of “bad faith use” in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding; see the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
In Nike, Inc. v. Crystal International, WIPO Case No. D2002-0352 as well as in y other decisions, it was held that non-use as such does not determine bad faith. But the non-use for a long time of the domain name while the trade mark RIVER BELLE has been widely publicized globally and constantly featured throughout the Internet since 1997, is certainly evidence of bad faith (see among others, Banco Santander Central Hispano S.A. v. Taiwan Motorbikes Netherland BV Panam�, WIPO Case No. D2002-0192, “The non use for six months by the Respondent could be considered an element of bad faith, but it has to be preceded by the bad faith registration as that is presently required by the Policy”).
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <redriverbellecasino.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.