FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS

This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds, as per ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix).

Complainant must first address a procedural matter regarding the listed ‘registrants’ for the subject domain names, namely Hotlive c/o Zeynel Brown aka Aaaaaaaaaaaaa c/o Yok Yok. ICANN Rules provide that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder" See Rules, para. 3(c) at Exhibit O. Previous Panels under the UDRP have recognized that a Complainant would be faced with an “unjustifiable economic burden” if it was required to bring several separate administrative proceedings, “and that it would be a burden on the administrative process” to require it to duplicate its effort in the same case (see Exhibit P).

As Complainant has determined through its investigations, there are a number of factors that link the two listed registrants. First, Complainant notes that the subject domain names are being used in the same manner, namely directing Web users to the website HotLivescore.com (see Exhibit J). Next, according to the WHOIS database information for both domain names, “zeynelbrown@gmail.com” is the listed email address for the administrative and technical contact for both domains (see Exhibits H and I). Furthermore, ns1.iddaasiteleri.net and ns2.iddaasiteleri.net is the name server information listed with both domain names and “zeynelbrown@gmail.com” is the listed email address for the administrative and technical contact for the associated domain name, IDDAASITELERI.NET (see Exhibit K).

In addition, the WHOIS information for both subject domains is clearly incomplete and false, in all likelihood to conceal the true registrant’s identification. Specifically, the listed address for HOTLIVESCORE.COM is “Manhattan, GB” and the listed address for HOTLIVESCORE.NET is “yokyokyok, yok, yok, yok, yok Turkey” (see Exhibits H and I).

The Panel should find that it would place an unjustifiable economic burden on Complainant to require him to initiate separate administrative proceedings for the respective subject domain names and that it would be a burden on the administrative process to require duplication of effort, in the context of this case. The two registrants shall hereinafter be referred to as "Respondent", except as is otherwise necessary for the sake of clarity.

The Respondent registered HOTLIVESCORE.COM with the registrar NamesDirect.com Ltd. (hereinafter “NamesDirect”) on September 13, 2006, eight years after Complainant adopted and began using the LIVESCORE trademark for its services at LiveScore.com (see Exhibits C and H). Respondent apparently registered HOTLIVESCORE.NET with NamesDirect on October 8, 2006 (see Exhibit I).

The subject domain names are being used in connection with Respondent’s HotLivescore.com, a website that features services identical to, and that directly compete with, Complainant’s services (see Exhibits B and J). In particular, the website associated with the subject domain names provides Web users with real-time scores for sporting events, including soccer (see Exhibit J). Furthermore, the website associated with the subject domain names features advertisement for numerous gaming entertainment services, including BetandWin.com, CasinoEuro.com and Expekt.com (see Exhibit J). Web users who reach the subject domain names also encounter several ‘pop-up’ advertisements for other commercial services, including Betsson.com, further frustrating users seeking to access Complainant’s LiveScore.com website (see Exhibit J).

In accordance with Complainant's usual practice for dealing with third parties it believes are attempting to trade on the name and good will of the valuable LIVESCORE trademark, Complainant’s legal counsel sent a cease and desist communication to Respondent to the email address zeynelbrown@gmail.com on November 24, 2006, giving notice to Respondent that the registration and use of HOTLIVESCORE.COM infringed and diluted LIVESCORE (see Exhibit L). Complainant requested, among other things, that Respondent immediately cease all use of HOTLIVESCORE.COM and begin an immediate transfer of the domain name (see Exhibit L). Complainant also offered to compensate the Respondent the domain’s registration fee for HOTLIVESCORE.COM (see Exhibit L).

Additional investigations by Complainant uncovered Respondent’s registration and use of HOTLIVESCORE.NET (see Exhibits I and J). Complainant’s counsel sent Respondent a follow-up communication via email on November 29, 2006, giving notice that HOTLIVESCORE.NET also infringed and diluted LIVESCORE and requesting it disable and transfer that domain name as well (see Exhibit M).

Respondent never responded to either communications and has continued to use the subject domain names at the time of the filing of this Complaint (see Exhibit J).

In light of the facts discussed above, Respondent has been involved in a pattern of bad faith domain name registration and use and Respondent’s conduct with regard to the subject domain names in the instant case serves as a classic example of the type of behavior the UDRP was instituted to remedy.

1. The Applicable Standards



Under Section 4(a) of the UDRP, an administrative proceeding resulting in the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant is required where (i) the domain is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and (iii) the domain has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Under Section 4(b)(ii) of the UDRP, registering a domain name primarily for the purpose of preventing a Complainant from reflecting its trademark, shall be evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name

Under Section 4(b)(iii) of the UDRP, registering or acquiring a domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor shall be evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name.

Under Section 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP, registering or acquiring a domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website, shall be evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name.

The facts and evidence will show Respondent has intentionally, and in bad faith, registered and is using as domain names the confusingly similar HOTLIVESCORE.COM and HOTLIVESCORE.NET in violation of Sections (b)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the UDRP.

1. The Subject Domain Names Are Confusingly Similar To A Mark In Which Complainant Has Rights

Complainant’s LiveScore.com is one of the most popular websites worldwide for providing sports enthusiasts real-time soccer match scores (see Exhibits B and F). The LIVESCORE trademark has been used in connection with Complainant’s service continuously since 1998 (see Exhibits C and G). The service offered under the LIVESCORE mark includes scores from over 100 soccer leagues that span 38 countries across Europe, South America, Asia and North America, as well as international soccer competitions (see Exhibit B). Complainant’s service also includes real time coverage of tennis and ice hockey competitions (see Exhibit B). Complainant’s service is also available to the consuming public through wireless application protocol (WAP) enabled mobile phone service or other WAP-enabled devices (see Exhibit B). Complainant’s LiveScore.com has recently formed a partnership with one of the most popular online sportsbook PinnacleSports.com, furthering the brand awareness of LIVESCORE (see Exhibit N).

Complainant’s website at LiveScore.com is one of the most active sports entertainment sites on the Internet. According to statistics obtained by Complainant from the Web information website Alexa.com, LiveScore.com ranks as the most visited website under the Soccer category and one of the top ten sites under the Sports category (see Exhibit F). Complainant’s website registered in excess of 460 million page views in the month of November 2006, as well as 9,915,051 ‘unique visitors’ for the same month (see Exhibit G).

By virtue of the quality of its service and over eight years of continuous use and extensive advertising and promotion, the LIVESCORE mark is well known to, and well regarded by, the consuming public (see Exhibits F, G and N). Complainant has firmly established common law rights in LIVESCORE through widespread and continuous use of the mark since as early as 1998 (see Exhibits C and G); see also Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (NAF May 18, 2001) [finding that the UDRP does not require “that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist”].

Complainant has also established additional rights in the trademark LIVESCORE in association with its services through its registration on the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (hereinafter “USPTO”) on December 4, 2001 (see Exhibit C). In addition, Complainant also owns a European Union (CTM) service mark registration for LIVESCORE (see Exhibit D). Such evidence of trademark registration with government authorities proves Complainant’s rights in the LIVESCORE mark. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) [finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive].

Additionally, in light of Complainant’s clear rights in the cited trademark and, pursuant to the authority of the USPTO, Respondent was placed on constructive notice of Complainant’s rights to LIVESCORE. Those rights clearly preceded Respondent’s registration of the subject domains, which were only registered within the past year (see Exhibits C, H and I); see also Vivid Video, Inc. v. Michele Dinoia, FA 155465 (NAF May 27, 2003) ["First, both the marks are registered on the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Such registration gives Respondent at least constructive knowledge of Complainant’s interests in marks that are confusingly similar and identical to the <vividtv.com> domain name."]; see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) [finding that the UDRP does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which a Respondent operates. It is sufficient that a Complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction].

Finally, this Forum has recognized Complainant’s rights in the LIVESCORE trademark in five previous proceedings under the UDRP (see Exhibit E).

Turning to the subject domain names, they are nearly identical to - and confusingly similar to - Complainant’s senior LIVESCORE trademark. Specifically, both HOTLIVESCORE.COM and HOTLIVESCORE.NET fully incorporate Complainant’s trademark in its entirety and deviate from the mark only with the addition of the descriptive/generic term “hot” and the inclusion of the non-distinctive generic code top-level domains (“gTLD”) “.com” and “net” (see Exhibits C, H and I). Complainant’s mark is the dominant element of each subject domain name and the addition of the term “hot” and the respective gTLDs do not sufficiently differentiate Respondent’s domain names from LIVESCORE. There is a long line of Panel decisions that have found that the mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered trademark does not negate the confusing similarity of a domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See America Online, Inc. v. Robert Miller, FA 180625 (NAF Sept. 15, 2003) [Domain includes Complainant’s mark with the addition of the descriptive word “hot,” which does not dispel any confusion arising from the inclusion of Complainant’s mark in the domain name]; see also L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (NAF Sept. 14, 2000) [finding that combining the generic word “shop” with Complainant’s mark “llbean” does not circumvent Complainant’s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the Policy]; see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) [finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar].

Finally, when used in the context of identical services, the subject domain names are clearly confusingly similar to Complainant’s LIVESCORE trademark (see Exhibits B and J); see also Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (NAF Dec. 18, 2000) [finding that confusion would result when Web users, intending to access Complainant’s website, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist]. Complainant and Respondent offer identical services in the same market, namely offering sports enthusiasts real-time scores for sporting events (see Exhibits B and J). Clearly, the Panel can infer Respondent had actual knowledge of the LIVESCORE mark when registering the subject domain names.

Given the obvious similarity of the subject domain names with Complainant’s LIVESCORE trademark, as well as Respondent’s pattern of registering and using domains that incorporate the Complainant’s mark, it is evident that the subject domains are confusingly similar to LIVESCORE, as was intended by the Respondent. The Panel should conclude that Respondent registered and is using the confusingly similar domain names to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation and goodwill in LIVESCORE. The subject domain names are likely to confuse Complainant’s customers and potential customers into believing that there is some affiliation, connection, sponsorship, approval or association between the Respondent and Complainant when in fact none exists.

Thus, Section 4(a)(i) of the UDRP is satisfied.

2. Respondent Has No Rights Or Legitimate Interests In The

Subject Domain Names

Respondent has wholly incorporated Complainant’s LIVESCORE trademark in the subject domain names to offer sports enthusiasts online access to real-time scores for sporting events (see Exhibits B, H and I). Respondent’s services are identical to Complainant’s services, the latter of which have been offered to consumers since 1998 (see Exhibits C and G). However, Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the subject domain names under the UDRP.