The Complex Dynamics of WIPO Case D2017-2469: Dafabet Uganda Limited vs. Angelito Teves, Emphasis Services Limited

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2017-2469, decided on February 21, 2018, provides a fascinating insight into the intricacies of domain name disputes. The case involved the domain name “dafabetuganda.com,” with Dafabet Uganda Limited of Kampala, Uganda, as the Complainant, and Angelito Teves, Emphasis Services Limited of the Turks and Caicos Islands, UK, as the Respondent.

Dafabet Uganda Limited offers an online auctioning service for household goods and appliances in Uganda and other parts of Africa. It operates websites through the domain names “dafabet.co.ug” and “dafabet.ug,” and a mobile application. On March 30, 2017, the Complainant applied for the trademark DAFABET in Uganda, which was registered on July 4, 2017.

The Respondent, on the other hand, operates sports betting websites, including “www.dafabet.com,” registered in 2009, and has a significant presence in the Philippines, the UK, Isle of Man, and Curaçao. They are also the registered owner of the D DAFABET and Design trademark in the European Union, the Philippines, and Kenya.

The disputed domain name “dafabetuganda.com” was registered by the Respondent on April 26, 2017, and resolved to a parked page at the time of the dispute. The Complainant argued that this domain name was confusingly similar to its DAFABET mark, and that the Respondent had no legitimate interest in it. They also claimed bad faith registration and use by the Respondent, suggesting an intention to confuse customers.

The Respondent countered by asserting its senior rights in the DAFABET mark, pointing out that it had been using the mark for thirteen years and owned trademark registrations predating the Complainant’s registration. The Respondent also suggested that it was the Complainant who was seeking to capitalize on the goodwill and reputation associated with the DAFABET mark.

The sole panelist, Lawrence K. Nodine, found that the disputed domain name was indeed confusingly similar to the DAFABET trademark. However, the panelist also recognized that the Respondent had not used the disputed domain name and that the Complainant had failed to prove bad faith registration and use by the Respondent. Consequently, the panelist concluded that the Complainant had not satisfied the necessary elements under the UDRP to succeed in its claim. As such, the Complaint was denied, illustrating the complexities and nuances of domain name disputes and the importance of thoroughly establishing each element of a claim under the UDRP.

For more detailed information on this case, you can visit the WIPO’s case summary.

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2017-2469, decided on February 21, 2018, provides a fascinating insight into the intricacies of domain name disputes. The case involved the domain name “dafabetuganda.com,” with Dafabet Uganda Limited of Kampala, Uganda, as the Complainant, and Angelito Teves, Emphasis Services Limited of the Turks and Caicos Islands, UK, as the…