Betbra.com

The timeline behind betbra.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

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

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Danilo Jose Pereira Treinamentos Ltda v. Stefano de Andrade Lima Case No. D2025-5253 1. The Parties The Complainant is Danilo Jose Pereira Treinamentos Ltda, Brazil, represented by Kasznar Leonardos Advogados, Brazil. The Respondent is Stefano de Andrade Lima, Brazil, represented by Dannemann Siemsen, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <betbra.com> 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 December 16, 2025. On December 16, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 17, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (GoDaddy.com, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 18, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar (Domain Administrator, Afternic, LLC - On Behalf of Domain Buyer), and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 22, 2025. 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 December 29, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 18, 2026. On January 12, 2026, the Center received email communications from a third party. On January 13, 2026, the Registrar updated the registrant and contact information, indicating the underlying registrant to be “涛 宋”. On January 16, 2026, the Center received an email communication from the address provided by the Registrar regarding the newly identified registrant. page 2 The Response was filed with the Center on January 17, 2026, indicating Mr. Stefano de Andrade Lima, as the registrant, also stating that as the Registrar’s registration system does not require the disclosure of detailed personal or corporate information, the disputed domain name was registered using a dedicated email address created exclusively for domain name administration purposes.(Annexes 8 and 9 to the Response). The Panel notes the discrepancy between the registrant information provided by the Registrar, which identifies the registrant as “涛 宋”, and the individual who filed the Response, Stefano de Andrade Lima. However, the Panel observes that the RVR-confirmed email address associated with the disputed domain name is identical to the email address provided by Stefano de Andrade Lima in his Response. This constitutes evidence that Stefano de Andrade Lima exercises actual use and control over the disputed domain name registration. Accordingly, the Panel shall treat Stefano de Andrade Lima as the Respondent in this proceeding. The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on January 27, 2026. 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 Brazilian company founded on February 3, 2016, providing training services in professional and managerial development in connection with online gaming and betting. The Complainant’s official website is available at “www.casadoapostador.com.br”, where the Complainant’s BETBRA trademark, launched in February 2023, is displayed. The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registration and the applicant of the following trademark applications (Annexes 5 and 6 do the Complaint): - France trademark registration No. 25 5155192 for the word mark BETBRA, filed on June 11, 2025, and registered on October 3, 2025, in class 41; - Brazil trademark application No. 937405604 for the word mark BETBRA, filed on December 16, 2024, in class 9; - Brazil trademark application No. 937406090 for the word mark BETBRA, filed on December 16, 2024, in class 41; and - Brazil trademark application No. 937406490 for the word mark BETBRA, filed on December 16, 2024, in class 42. The disputed domain name was registered on February 17, 2018, and presently does not resolve to an active webpage. In the past, the disputed domain name was used to resolve Internet users to a webpage where online gaming and betting were provided under the header “BRABET.COM” (Annex 9 to the Complaint). The Respondent is an executive officer of BB Gaming Ltda. (“BB Gaming”), based in São Paulo, Brazil. BB Gaming is the applicant of the following trademark applications for BRABET (Annexes 19-21 to the Response): - Brazil trademark application No. 935745335 for the word mark BRABET, filed on August 9, 2024, in class 41; - Brazil trademark application No. 936166240 for the word mark BRABET, filed on September 10, 2024, in class 42; and - Brazil trademark application No. 937631418 for the word mark BRABET, filed on January 13, 2025, in class 9. The disputed domain name was acquired under the name of “涛 宋” at an auction that took place on March 11, 2022, for USD 280 (Annex 8 to the Response), and the transfer was completed on April 26, 2022 (Annex 9 to the Response). page 3 The <brabet.com> domain name was also acquired under the name of “涛 宋” at an auction that took place on March 10, 2022, for USD 1.650 (Annex 11 to the Response). The BRABET Facebook page was created on April 2, 2022 (Annex 12 to the Response) and the first post featuring the BRABET trademark on the Respondent’s Instagram account (“@brabet_official”) was made on August 10, 2022 (Annex 14 to the Response). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant asserts to have been using the BETBRA trademark since February 2023, having achieved remarkable growth, with a reported 7,000 active users in 2023 (monthly turnover of approximately BRL 45 million), 18,000 active users in 2024 (monthly turnover of approximately BRL 90 million), and 40,000 active users in 2025 (monthly turnover of approximately BRL 200 million), what indicates the solid recognition and commercial success of the BETBRA trademark in the online betting and sports investment management segments. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's BETBRA trademark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name given that: i. the Respondent is not known by the Complainant; ii. the Complainant has not engaged with the Respondent in any activity, nor has there been any business association between the parties; and iii. the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to register and/or use any domain name incorporating the BETBRA trademark; also not having the Complainant granted any license or authorization to the Respondent to use the BETBRA trademark. Lastly, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and retained the disputed domain name in bad faith given that the disputed domain name has been used to redirect Internet users to a competing website available at “www.brabet.com”, thus creating direct consumer confusion and undue and fraudulent association. A further indicative of the Respondent’s bad faith conduct, according to the Complainant, is the Respondent's choice to retain a privacy protection service so as to conceal the Respondent's true identity. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Respondent asserts to be a Brazilian citizen, an executive officer of BB Gaming LTDA, which, in conjunction with Five-Tech Games Ltda. are engaged in exploiting online betting and gaming platforms under the BRABET trademark and platform available at <brabet.com>. The Respondent further submits that the BRABET operations were initiated in 2022, having, in that same year, reached 300,000 active users and that the Respondent, through the aforementioned companies, has been operating the BRABET platform as part of a genuine and ongoing business project, using the disputed domain name exclusively in connection with the bona fide offering of betting and gaming services, and, at no time having the Respondent sought to target, exploit, or take unfair advantage of any third-party trademark or rights. page 4 The Respondent contends that at the time of both the initial registration (February 17, 2018) and acquisition (March 11, 2022) of the disputed domain name, the Complainant had not yet begun using the BETBRA trademark - which only took place in February 2023 -, nor had it established any reputation or enforceable rights therein. Consequently, the Respondent could not have been aware of the Complainant or its alleged activities. The Respondent thus contends that the acquisition of the disputed domain name did not result from any attempt to exploit third-party rights, but rather formed part of a legitimate and common business strategy, namely the registration of similar domain names in order to prevent third parties from registering confusingly similar domain names and using them for competing or misleading purposes. In addition, on the Respondent’s view, the use of a defensively registered domain name to redirect Internet users to the Respondent’s own legitimate business website is not prohibited under the Policy and does not, in itself, constitute evidence of bad faith, having the Complainant failed to demonstrate otherwise. Lastly, the Respondent disputed that, in the absence of any evidence of false registration data, evasive conduct, or abusive behavior, the Respondent’s use of privacy services must be regarded as entirely legitimate and fully consistent with good-faith domain name registration and use. 6. Discussion and Findings Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Based on the available record, the disputed domain name was acquired by the Respondent before the Complainant registered or began using the BETBRA trademark. The record indicates that the Respondent has, in conjunction with BB Gaming and Five-Tech Games Ltda., been engaged in online betting and gaming platforms under the BRABET trademark since at least April 2, 2022 (Annex 12 to the Response). page 5 The Respondent states that its aim in acquiring the disputed domain name was to prevent the registration of similar domain names in order to prevent third parties from registering confusingly similar domain names and using them for competing or misleading purposes. Nevertheless, having merely noted the above matters without reaching any conclusion thereon, and considering the Panel’s finding that the Complaint fails under the third element of the Policy, the Panel need not make any determination under the second element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds no evidence or circumstances upon which to infer that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In order to satisfy the third element under the Policy, the Complainant must establish the conjunctive requirement that the Respondent both registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In order to demonstrate, first, that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name, and did so in order to take unfair advantage of the commercial goodwill attaching to that trademark, in other words, “targeting” the Complainant’s trademark rights. According to the available evidence, the disputed domain name was registered in 2018, and acquired by the Respondent in 2022, whereas the Complainant’s BETBRA trademark was only launched in February 2023. Where a domain name has been registered before a complainant has acquired trademark rights, only in exceptional cases would a complainant be able to prove a respondent’s bad faith. Here, the Complainant did not claim or provide any evidence of its trademark registration or use at the time the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name and, as a result, the Complainant has not met its burden of demonstrating that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and in order to target that trademark. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/ Wilson Pinheiro Jabur Sole Panelist Date: February 10, 2026

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