Virginbetpg.com + 3 more domains

The timeline behind virginbetpg.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 Virgin Enterprises Limited v. cuilichen, cui Case No. D2026-0838 1. The Parties The Complainant is Virgin Enterprises Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Venner Shipley LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondent is cuilichen, cui, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <virginbetpg.com>, <virginbetpk.com>, <virginbetvip.com> and <virginbet1.com> are registered with Dominet (HK) Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 26, 2026. On February 26, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 27, 2026, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 3, 2026, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 4, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 25, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 26, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira as the sole panelist in this matter on April 2, 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 company based in the United Kingdom and part of the Virgin Group. The Virgin Group operates a wide range of businesses across multiple sectors worldwide. The Complainant is responsible for the registration and licensing of trademarks incorporating the “Virgin” name and owns an extensive global trademark portfolio covering numerous jurisdictions and classes. For the purposes of these proceedings, the Panel notes in particular the following trademark registrations: United Kingdom Trade Mark Registration No. UK00003163121 for VIRGIN, registered on July 29, 2016; United Kingdom Trade Mark Registration No. UK00003269158 for VIRGIN BET, registered on February 2, 2018; and European Union Trade Mark Application No. 016151102 for VIRGIN BET, registered on July 11, 2017. The Complainant has used the VIRGIN mark extensively since the 1970s and operates a substantial portfolio of domain names incorporating the VIRGIN mark. The Complainant’s licensee operates the website at “www.virgin.com”, and the Virgin Bet business (an online sports betting app) has operated since 2019. As such, the Complainant also operates the website at “www.virginbet.com”. The disputed domain names are: <virginbetpg.com> (registered June 12, 2025); <virginbetpk.com> (registered June 13, 2025); <virginbet1.com> (registered June 22, 2025); <virginbetvip.com> (registered June 10, 2025). The disputed domain names resolve to websites offering online betting and gaming services that prominently display the terms “Virginbet” and “Virgin Bet”. These websites feature login prompts and promotional offers, some of them contain links redirecting users to third-party gambling platforms, some offer a link to “download the app” and feature statements “virgin bet is the leading reputable bookmaker today” or “Virgin Bet offers an exciting platform for online betting [...]” (as per the translation from Portuguese provided by the Complainant). 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 names. Notably, the Complainant contends that: 1. the Complainant is the owner of the VIRGIN and VIRGIN BET trademarks, which have been extensively used worldwide and enjoy a significant reputation. 2. the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s VIRGIN and VIRGIN BET marks in their entirety. page 3 3. the addition of the terms “pg”, “pk”, “1”, and “vip” does not distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s marks, as these are non-distinctive elements, including geographical references. 4. the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. 5. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. 6. the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register the disputed domain names. 7. the disputed domain names resolve to websites that purport to offer online betting and gaming services, using the terms “Virginbet” and “Virgin Bet” prominently. 8. the websites offer services identical or highly similar to those provided by the Complainant. 9. the websites contain irregular content, lack standard legal information, and redirect users to third-party gambling platforms. 10. the Respondent is likely deriving commercial gain from redirecting Internet users to third-party websites. 11. the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. 12. the disputed domain names were registered well after the Complainant had established its trademark rights and reputation. 13. the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration. 14. the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks. 15. the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 names. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the VIRGIN and VIRGIN BET trademarks. Each of the disputed domain names incorporates the Complainant’s VIRGIN BET mark in its entirety. The addition of the terms “pg”, “pk”, “1”, and “vip” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. The Panel finds that 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. page 4 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 difficult 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 forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case. The evidence shows that the disputed domain names resolve to websites offering betting and gaming services – similar to the Complainant’s Virgin Bet app – using the Complainant’s trademarks. These websites prominently display the Complainant’s VIRGIN and VIRGIN BET marks and offer services identical or highly similar to those of the Complainant, while containing links redirecting users to third-party platforms. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names were registered well after the Complainant had established its trademark rights. The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s marks in their entirety and resolve to websites offering competing betting and gaming services, while containing links redirecting users to third-party platforms. The Panel also notes the disputed domain names are highly similar to the Complainant’s official domain name < virginbet.com>. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the websites associated with the disputed domain names by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such websites, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been established. page 5 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 <virginbetpg.com>, <virginbetpk.com>, <virginbetvip.com>, and <virginbet1.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira/ Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira Sole Panelist Date: April 16, 2026

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