Casino777es.com

The timeline behind casino777es.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Casino De Spa S.A. v. David Weinstein Case No. D2026-0678 1. The Parties The Complainant is Casino De Spa S.A., Belgium, represented by COGITUS SRL, Belg ium. The Respondent is David Weinstein, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <casino777es.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 17, 2026. On February 17, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 17, 2026, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 19, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on February 24, 2026. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 26, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was March 18, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on March 20, 2026. The Center appointed Jeremy Speres as the sole panelist in this matter on March 30, 2026. The Panel f inds 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant owns various CASINO 777 and 777 trademarks, including European Union Trademark Registration No. 014632244 CASINO 777 in classes 9, 28, and 41, having a registration date of March 31, 2016, which it licenses to various online casinos in Europe, notably in Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Spain. In Spain, the Complainant licenses its trademarks to the casino operator Digital Distribution Management Iberica, which operates an online casino under the CASINO 777 mark at the domain name <casino777.es> (registered in 2005), which the Complainant’s evidence establishes has been used as such since at least 2019. The disputed domain name was registered on June 27, 2024, and presently resolves to a website in Spanish entitled “Casino777”, ostensibly of f ering online casino and sports betting games. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad f aith in order to capitalize on conf usion with the Complainant’s reputed CASINO 777 mark f or the Respondent’s commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel is required to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a f air opportunity to present its case, and also that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. Since the Respondent has provided an address purportedly located in Ukraine, which is subject to an international conf lict at the date of this Decision that may impact case notif ication, it is appropriate for the Panel to consider, in accordance with its discretion under paragraph 10 of the Rules, whether the proceeding should continue. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Panel is of the view that it should continue. The Panel has reached this conclusion in part because the Panel recognizes that the Center employed all reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to the Respondent. In particular, the Center successfully sent the Notification of the Complaint to the email address disclosed for the Respondent by the Registrar in its Registrar Verification Response. There is no indication that the email notif ication has not been successf ully delivered. Furthermore, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name was created in June 2024, during the international conflict, suggesting that the Respondent is able to access the Internet, maintain control of the disputed domain name, and should have received at least electronic notice of this proceeding. Finally, for the reasons which are set out later in this Decision, the Panel has no serious doubt that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain names in bad f aith. page 3 The Panel theref ore concludes that the Respondent has been given a f air opportunity to present his case, and so that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition the Panel will proceed to a Decision accordingly. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Spaces within a trademark can be disregarded for purposes of assessing confusing similarity (Novomatic AG v. Oleg Bakanach, WIPO Case No . D2020-1667). Accordingly, the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, (here “es”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such term d oes not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel f inds the f irst 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. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the dif f icult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. For the reasons discussed in relation to bad f aith below, it is likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of conf usion with the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in these circumstances cannot represent a bona f ide of fering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy and cannot conf er rights or legitimate interests. Sistema de Ensino Poliedro Vestibulares Ltda., Editora Poliedro Ltda. v. Anonymize, Inc. / STANLEY PACE, WIPO Case No . D2022-1981. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad f aith. For the f ollowing reasons, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name to take advantage of conf usion with the Complainant’s mark f or the Respondent’s commercial gain, f alling squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant’s evidence establishes that its CASINO 777 mark was reputed prior to registration of the disputed domain name, including in the Spanish market f or its Spanish licensee’s online casino. The disputed domain name has been used f or a website ostensibly of f ering competing services, apparently targeting the same market; use of the Spanish language and the term “es” within the disputed domain name point to this. The disputed domain name’s website uses a mark that is identical to the Complainant’s reputed mark, apart from the lack of a space between “Casino” and “777”. The composition of the disputed domain name is highly similar to that of the Complainant’s Spanish licensee - <casino777.es>. The Complainant’s evidence establishes that when users interact with sign-up or promotional elements on the disputed domain name’s website, they are redirected to external third-p arty websites using tracking parameters and affiliate identifiers. This indicates that the disputed domain name’s website is inauthentic in that it does not offer the online casino and sports betting services that it purports to offer. Rather, it appears calculated to monetise traf f ic generated through conf usion with the Complainant’s reputed mark. The probability of targeting is increased by the Respondent’s cybersquatting history, with the Respondent having been found to have contravened the Policy in two prior cases also targeting casino brands. See Elec Games Ltd. v. David Weinstein, WIPO Cas e No . D2024-4065; and Elec Games Ltd. v. David Weinstein, WIPO Case No . D2024-4076. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel draws an adverse inf erence f rom the Respondent’s f ailure to take part in the present proceeding where an explanation is certainly called for (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.3). The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <casino777es.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Jeremy Speres/ Jeremy Speres Sole Panelist Date: April 2, 2026

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