Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2014-1322 of Tribunal Arbitral de la OMPI, September 21, 2014 (case Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. Ekirimm Yikillmaazz)

Actor:Microgaming Software Systems Limited
Defense:ekirimm yikillmaazz
Resolution Date:September 21, 2014
Issuing Organization:Tribunal Arbitral de la OMPI
Decision:Transfer
Dominio:Generic Domains
SUMMARY

[usonlinecasinosmicrogaming.com]

 
FREE EXCERPT

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. Ekirimm Yikillmaazz

Case No. D2014-1322

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Microgaming Software Systems Limited of Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by D. Young & Co., United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Ekirimm Yikillmaazz of Ankara, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name [usonlinecasinosmicrogaming.com] is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 4, 2014. On August 4, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 5, 2014, the Registrar 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” 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 6, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 26, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 27, 2014.

The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on September 2, 2014. 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 was established in 1994 and is a developer of online casino software.

The Complainant is the exclusive licensee of a number of registered trademarks consisting of the word MICROGAMING (the “MICROGAMING trademark”) in various jurisdictions throughout the world including:

- The word trademark MICROGAMING, registered in Australia on July 22, 2002 with registration No. 920607 for goods and services in International Classes 9,35 and 41;

- The word trademark MICROGAMING, registered in Canada on November 2, 2004 with registration No. TMA624367;

- The word trademark MICROGAMING, registered as a Community trademark on January 8, 2004 with registration No. 002789063 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 35 and 41.

The proprietor of the MICROGAMING trademark is Neosoft Anstalt, Vaduz, Liechtenstein.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 6, 2012.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that it has developed the world’s first operational online casino system. This system is currently utilised by more than 100 online casinos, including The Palace Group and DigiMedia Limited. The websites of these online casinos have more than three million visitors per month in total, while the Complainant’s own website at “www.microgaming.com” attracts about 250,000 visitors per year. As a result of the Complainant’s use and advertising of the MICROGAMING trademark, the latter has acquired extensive goodwill in relation to online casino and gaming related software.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MICROGAMING trademark. The dominant part of the disputed domain name is “microgaming”, while the word “us” is generic and the words “online” and “casinos” are descriptive of the activities of the Complainant. The use of the dominant element “microgaming” along with such generic and descriptive words makes the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL