Westmore · UDRP DecisionSpincasino.cc, Spincasino.vip, Spincasinovip.com
The Panel ordered transfer of all three disputed domain names. It found them confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered SPINCASINO trademark, found that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests, and concluded that the domains were registered and used in bad faith. The bad-faith finding relied particularly on the reputation of the mark, the Respondent’s inferred prior knowledge, and the domains’ prior redirection to an online slot-machine and casino-games website offering services similar to those of the Complainant. Their later use for pages purporting to be versions of the CNET news website did not alter the finding.
The timeline behind spincasino.cc
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 spincasino.cc — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The decision illustrates a straightforward multiple-domain targeting pattern in which exact incorporation of a gaming mark, coordinated registration, and use for closely related casino services supported findings under all three UDRP elements. It also shows that changing the destination content after earlier confusing commercial use does not necessarily alter a panel’s bad-faith conclusion.
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 Merryvale Limited v. Ming Ming Li Case No. D2021-1060 1. The Parties The Complainant is Merryvale Limited, Guernsey, represented by Herzog, Fox & Neeman, Israel. The Respondent is Ming Ming Li, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <spincasino.cc>, <spincasino.vip>, and <spincasinovip.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 8, 2021. On April 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 9, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 12, 2021, 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 April 12, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 13, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 3, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 4, 2021. The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on May 11, 2021. 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 company organized under the laws of Guernsey that is active in the online gaming industry, and who, inter alia , operates a number of online gaming websites under the brand name SPINCASINO. The Complainant is the owner of several registrations of the trademark SPINCASINO including but not limited to the European Union Trade Mark No. 01335427, registered on February 18, 2015, for products and services in classes 9, 41, and 42, notably online gaming, gambling and betting services. The Complainant also owns several domain names relating to its SPINCASINO trademark, e.g . the domain name <spincasino.com>, which resolves to the Complainant’s main website at “www.spincasino.com” where the Complainant offers an online casino platform and related services. The Respondent registered all three disputed domain names on December 31, 2020. All three used to redirect to an online slot machines and casino games website at “www.fun120.com”, but now resolve to identical websites that displays what purports to be versions of the news website “CNET”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, as they either consist only of the words “spin” and “casino” with the general Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffixe “.vip” or the country-code Top Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.cc”, or additionally contain the word “vip” and the gTLD suffix “.com”, none of which creates an overall different impression. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has never been licensed or otherwise authorized to use the SPINCASINO marks. Furthermore, the Respondent has not used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, neither the Respondent, nor any business operated by it, is or has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Complainant finally submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. At the time of the registration of the disputed domain names, SPINCASINO is a world-known brand that had been in the existence for over seven years, with millions of users worldwide, and it is therefore clear that the Respondent knew, or at the very least should have known, about the Complainant’s marks and operation. In addition, the Complainant submits that the use of the disputed domain names, which are identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SPINCASINO marks, are clear evidence that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the SPINCASINO marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the 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 a complainant must prove each of the following: (i) 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; (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) 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 therefrom as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant’s registered trademark SPINCASINO. The disputed domain names <spincasino.cc> and <spincasino.vip> contain the Complainant’s trademark SPINCASINO in its entirety, while the disputed domain name <spincasinovip.com> contains the mark in its entirety with the addition of the acronym “vip” as suffix. The ccTLD “.cc” and the gTLDs “.vip” and “.com” are standard registration requirements and as such are disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See Section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled in relation to all the disputed domain names. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests According to the Complaint, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark. Further, given the circumstances of this case, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted this, and the way the Respondent has been and is using the disputed domain names (see below in the section 6.C) does not support a finding of rights or legitimate interests. Consequently, the Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are also fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove both registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides examples of circumstances which shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the holder has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the holder’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the holder has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the holder has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the holder has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the holder has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the holder’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the holder’s website or location or of a product or service on the holder’s website or location. Accordingly, for the Complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Given the circumstances of the case, in particular the extent of use and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark SPINCASINO, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s marks. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith. Also, the Respondent has used the disputed domain names actively to redirect to an online slot machines and casino games website at “www.fun120.com”, i.e . to a website that offered similar services offered by the Complainant. It is thus obvious to the Panel that the Respondent has used the disputed domain names in bad faith by intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website. The fact that the use of the disputed domain names now resolve to identical websites that displays what purports to be versions of the news website “CNET”, does not alter this finding. Noting that the disputed domain names incorporate a well-known trademark, that no response has been filed, that there appears to be no conceivable good faith use of the disputed domain names and considering all the facts and evidence, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case. 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 disputed domain names, <spincasino.cc>, <spincasino.vip>, and <spincasinovip.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Knud Wallberg Sole Panelist Date: May 25, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around spincasino.cc
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.