Westmore · UDRP DecisionCasumoslots.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <casumoslots.com>. It found the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered CASUMO mark because it incorporated the mark with the generic gambling-related term “slots.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and its use of the Domain Name to redirect users to a competing gambling website supported a finding of registration and use in bad faith.
The timeline behind casumoslots.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind casumoslots.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a straightforward competitor-redirection pattern: a registered mark was reproduced in full, paired with an industry-specific term, and used to direct users to competing services. The same use supported both the absence of rights or legitimate interests and the finding of bad faith.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Casumo Services Limited v. Ido Raviv, Net Games Inc. Case No. D2014-0442 1. The Parties The Complainant is Casumo Services Limited of Malta, Malta, represented by Domain and Intellectual Property Consultants, DIPCON AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Ido Raviv, Net Games Inc. of West Byfleet, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <casumoslots.com> (the “Domain Name”) 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 March 21, 2014. On March 21, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 21, 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 April 2, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 22, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 23, 2014. The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on May 6, 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 is a Maltese company that offers services within the games and gambling business under the trademark CASUMO. CASUMO has been registered as a Community Trademark for services in classes 35, 38 and 41 since October 3, 2012, and is being used for games and gambling services from the website “www.casumo.com”. The Panel has received no information on the Respondent’s business. The Domain Name was registered on November 23, 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Domain Name, which consists of the Complainant’s CASUMO trademark and the addition of the generic term “slots” is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CASUMO mark. The Complainant has not point licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark, and the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name nor uses it for any legitimate purpose. On the contrary, the Respondent is using the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to the website “www.nordicslots.com”, which provides games and gambling services in competition with the Complainant’s activities. In this manner, the Respondent uses the Domain Name to profit commercially from the Complainant’s trademark and the said use is furthermore disrupting the business of the Complainant. Since the Domain Name was registered after the registration of the Complainant’s trademark CASUMO and of the corresponding domain name <casumo.com> the Complainant claims that the 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. General According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the panel shall decide a complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (1) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (3) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences there from as it considers appropriate. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name contains the Complainant’s registered trademark CASUMO with the addition of the term “slots”, which must be considered to be a generic term for services within games and gambling. It is a well-established practice under the UDRP that the addition of a generic term to a trademark is not typically sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. See paragraph 1.2 in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition . Since the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) identifier “.com”, shall be disregarded for the purpose of this procedure, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests According to the Complaint, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the mark. Further, the Panel finds that the manner in which the Domain Name is used, namely to redirect Internet users to a website that offers services in competition with the Complainant under the domain name <nordicslots.com> makes it highly unlikely that any such rights or legitimate interests may exist. Under the circumstances present in this case, the burden of production therefore shifts to the Respondent. In the absence of a response from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Consequently the requisites in the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii) are also considered fulfilled. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent has not offered any explanation for having registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive mark and then using it to redirect to a website offering competing services to those offered by the Complainant. Given the circumstances of the present case the Panel finds that the Respondent’s intention from the outset, as contended by the Complainant, has been to use the Domain Name to attract Internet users to a website with competing services, whether with an intention for commercial gain or with an intention of disrupting the business of the Complainant. Bearing these facts and the facts mentioned above in mind the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, cf . paragraph 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Consequently, all the prerequisites for cancellation or transfer of the Domain Name according to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are fulfilled. The Complainant has requested the Panel appointed in this administrative proceeding that the Domain Name be transferred to it. 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 Domain Name <casumoslots.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Knud Wallberg Sole Panelist Date: May 20, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around casumoslots.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.