Westmore · UDRP decision
WIPO · Case No. D2015-1858

Www13bets10.com

TransferWIPO-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered transfer of <www13bets10.com>. It found the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BETS10 mark because it incorporated the mark in full, with “www” reflecting a familiar typosquatting pattern and “13” adding rather than reducing confusion in the online-gaming context. The Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests because the Domain Name redirected users to a competing gaming website and a page prominently displaying the Complainant’s logo. That use also established bad-faith registration and use.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2015-12-18
Panelist(s)
Lowe, Ian
Complainant
Realm Entertainment Limited
Respondent
Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Engin Talih
Counsel
Domain · Intellectual Property Consultants, Dipcon AB
Disputed domain(s)
www13bets10.com
Citation weightCited by 2 later decisions
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind www13bets10.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 www13bets10.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:

Registration → decision → today timeline
Archived Wayback evidence of what the site showed
Registry bad-faith signals
The live current registrant
Available in UDRP Intelligence
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of www13bets10.com.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

The case combines a missing-full-stop “www” typosquatting structure with the complete incorporation of a gaming trademark, an additional number, competitive redirection, and display of the trademark owner’s logo. The Panel treated the number as increasing confusion in context and regarded the competitive redirection as compelling evidence under both the second and third UDRP elements.

The three-part test
Identical or confusingly similarMet
Rights or legitimate interestsMet
Registered and used in bad faithMet

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Case details
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2015-12-18
Panel
Lowe, Ian
Full decision
6 min read · hosted by Westmore

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Realm Entertainment Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Engin Talih Case No. D2015-1858 1. The Parties The Complainant is Realm Entertainment Limited of Ta&rsquo;Xbiex, Malta, represented by Domain and Intellectual Property Consultants, DIPCON AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America / Engin Talih of San Gwann, Malta. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <www13bets10.com> (the &ldquo;Domain Name&rdquo;) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the &ldquo;Registrar&rdquo;). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the &ldquo;Center&rdquo;) on October 19, 2015. On October 19, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 20, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 22, 2015, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 26, 2015. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the &ldquo;Policy&rdquo; or &ldquo;UDRP&rdquo;), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the &ldquo;Rules&rdquo;), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the &ldquo;Supplemental Rules&rdquo;). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 29, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 18, 2015. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on October 29, 2015, but did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the commencement of Panel Appointment Process on November 20, 2015. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on December 3, 2015. 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 running a well-known game website at &ldquo;www.bet10.com&rdquo; offering a wide range of online gambling products and games. The domain name <bet10.com> was registered by the Complainant on September 14, 2009 and the website had almost 50 million page views in the period between May 1, 2015 and shortly before the filing of the Complaint. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of Community trademark No. 009941139 BETS10 registered as of May 4, 2011, and Community trademark No. 012403713 BETS10 and device registered as of December 9, 2013. The Domain Name was registered on September 19, 2015 and resolves to a web page at &ldquo;http://tumcasino.net&rdquo;. Tüm Casino is a Turkish online casino website offering similar services to those of the Complainant. 5. Parties&rsquo; Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its BETS10 trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent sent an email to the Center on October 29, 2015 stating &ldquo;Thank you for your email. I will contact with my lawyer and try to make my defense ready until November 18, 2015.&rdquo; No further submission was received from the Respondent. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel accepts that the Complainant has uncontested rights in respect of the BETS10 mark through established use for a number of years and by virtue of its registered Community trademarks. Ignoring the &ldquo;.com&rdquo; suffix for the purpose of assessing the similarity of the Domain Name, the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Complainant&rsquo;s mark together with &ldquo;www&rdquo; and &ldquo;13&rdquo;. The addition of &ldquo;www&rdquo; to a domain name is a well-known practice of typosquatters looking to take advantage of Internet users who omit to add a full stop after &ldquo;www&rdquo; when entering a website address and can therefore be discounted when considering confusing similarity. In the context of online gaming websites, the Panel considers that the addition of a number such as &ldquo;13&rdquo; as a prefix is likely to add to confusion and not detract from the distinctiveness of the &ldquo;bets10&rdquo; mark. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has used the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a competing, Turkish, gaming website and to a web page prominently carrying the Complainant&rsquo;s BETS10 logo. The Panel cannot conceive of any rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent that could entitle it to use the Domain Name in this way and the Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to put forward any explanation as to any rights or legitimate interests on its part. It has therefore failed to dispel the prima facie case raised by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith On the same basis, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its rights in the BETS10 mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Respondent&rsquo;s subsequent use of the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a competing, gaming website amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use under the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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, <www13bets10>, be transferred to the Complainant. Ian Lowe Sole Panelist Date: December 18, 2015

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around www13bets10.com

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
115,934 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

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.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore 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.

Confidential buyer-side representation for premium-domain acquisitions, backed by WHOIS, UDRP and domain-sales intelligence.

or
Buyer-side only Escrow-protected NDA on request
Services
Research
UDRP
Westmore
Support

Copyright © 2026 Westmore. All rights reserved.

Essential cookies only. Nothing is sold or shared.