Mgmcasino-se.com

The timeline behind mgmcasino-se.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 MGM Resorts International v. Arsenii Mihail Case No. D2026-1112 1. The Parties The Complainant is MGM Resorts International, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Com Laude Limited, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Arsenii Mihail, Republic of Moldova. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <mgmcasino-se.com> is registered with Devexpanse Ltd d/b/a Regery.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 16, 2026. On March 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 16, 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 information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 17, 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 amended Complaint on March 17, 2026. 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 March 19, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 8, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 10, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Reyes Campello Estebaranz as the sole panelist in this matter on April 17, 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 prominent American global entertainment and gaming company with a history dating back to the late 1960s. The company operates under the MGM mark managing a vast portfolio of 31 unique hotels and gaming destinations worldwide, offering diverse services ranging from hospitality to live entertainment. Its industry leadership is evidenced by its financial success, notably being ranked as the world’s largest casino company by revenue in 2023, with earnings reaching USD16.16 billion. In 2018, the Complainant launched through a partnership with Entain Plc, the gaming brand “BetMGM”, which represents the company’s expansion into digital gaming and online sports betting. The brand has seen rapid growth, operating in 29 markets and entering the Swedish market in 2024 following the acquisition of LeoVegas. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the BetMGM brand had a net revenue of USD 2.1 billion in 2024 and has been awarded multiple “Casino Operator of the Year” awards. The Complainant owns a significant portfolio of registered trademarks for its brands MGM and BetMGM, including: - United States Trademark Registration No. 1060489, MGM (word), registered on March 1, 1977; - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 016251613, MGM (word), registered on July 12, 2017; and - United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00910355691, MGM (word), registered on July 14, 2017. - United States Trademark Registration No. 6025462, BETMGM (word), registered on March 31, 2020; and - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 018390081, BETMGM (word), registered on June 26, 2021. Hereinafter collectively referred to as the “MGM Mark” and the “BETMGM Mark”, respectively. The Complainant further maintains a portfolio of domain names corresponding to its trademarks, such as <betmgm.com> and <betmgminc.com>, which resolve to its official international websites, as well as <betmgm.se>, which resolves to its official Swedish platform. The disputed domain name was registered on November 24, 2025, and resolves to an active Swedish- language website that purportedly offers online casino services. This website prominently displays the MGM Mark in its header under the title “MGM CASINO REVIEW”, and repeatedly throughout its sections with claims such as: “Welcome to Mgm Casino – the Swedish gaming site where speed, emotion and real winnings meet”; “Why choose MGM Casino? MGM Casino stands out in the Swedish market...”; and “Security & Fair Play, MGM Casino operates with the highest level of security”. The site further asserts that all games are sourced from reputable providers like NetEnt, Play’n GO, Pragmatic Play, and Evolution to ensure fair payouts. Notably, the website employs a black-and-yellow color scheme substantially similar to the Complainant’s official branding. Access to services requires user registration and login; however, the site provides no information regarding its owner or the registrant of the disputed domain name. The favicon of the site features a Swedish flag and the footer copyright notice includes a disclaimer asserting independence from “Mgm Casino” indicating, “Copyright © 2026. This website provides independent reviews and is not affiliated with Mgm Casino or its operators. Users are solely responsible for ensuring that their use of this website and related gaming activities comply with applicable laws and regulations in Sweden”. page 3 According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Respondent’s website previously displayed the BETMGM Mark in a graphic representation very similar to that of the Complainant. It also featured several images allegedly copied from the Complainant’s official sites, and a favicon labeled “Mgm Casino Sverige” that also included the graphic BETMGM mark. Furthermore, the website contained multiple links redirecting users to a competing online gambling platform. In January 2026, the Complainant sent several cease-and-desist notifications to the web hosting provider requesting the takedown of the Respondent’s website. In its reply, the hosting provider reproduced the Respondent’s response to said request as follows: “All elements containing trademarks, logos, icons, and other visual materials related to the mgmcasino- se.com brand have been completely removed from the website MGM Casino. Currently, the site does not use any images, symbols, or materials owned by the company or its partners. A clear disclaimer is placed in the footer stating that the resource is an independent informational platform, has no affiliation with the original mgmcasino-se.com, and does not represent its interests. The site operates solely for informational purposes, providing reviews and descriptions without infringing on the rights of the copyright holders.” 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 contends that its MGM and BETMGM marks are well known internationally, specifically highlighting its BETMGM figurative mark (logo) reproduced below: The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MGM Mark. The disputed domain name fully incorporates the mark, which remains clearly recognizable, followed by the terms “casino” and “se” separated by a hyphen. The latter corresponds to the country code for Sweden, which heightens the likelihood of confusion as these terms relate directly to the Complainant’s core business activities and a market in which it actively operates. Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and the use of the hyphen are mere technical or orthographic requirements that should be disregarded for the purposes of the first element of the Policy. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, has received no authorization to use the Complainant’s trademarks, and is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Specifically, the Complainant argues that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate its brand, creating a deceptive review site designed to redirect users to competitors via affiliate links for commercial gain. The Complainant views the Respondent’s recent removal of infringing content and the belated addition of a disclaimer as an admission of liability. Despite the Respondent’s claims of being “purely informational”, the Complainant maintains that the continued use of prominent affiliate links demonstrates that the Respondent’s website’s primary purpose is to profit from the Complainant’s reputation. page 4 Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by intentionally creating “initial interest confusion”. By incorporating the well-known MGM Mark alongside industry-specific terms, the Respondent leads users to believe the website at the disputed domain name is officially endorsed by or affiliated with the Complainant. This confusion is leveraged for commercial gain by exploiting the Complainant’s brand equity to divert traffic to competing gambling platforms. The Complainant further argues that the disclaimer is insufficient to cure this bad faith and, conversely, serves as an admission of the potential for user confusion. Ultimately, the Respondent’s activities disrupt the Complainant’s business and prejudice users seeking genuine services. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant has submitted all relevant assertions under the Policy, and the dispute properly falls within its scope. The Panel has the authority to decide the dispute by examining the three elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, taking into account all relevant evidence, annexed materials, and submissions. The Panel may also conduct limited independent research pursuant to its general powers, as provided, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules. 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 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, namely the MGM Mark and the BETMGM Mark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The MGM Mark is incorporated in its entirety within the disputed domain name, followed by the term “casino” and the letters “se”, separated by a hyphen. The Panel finds that the mark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name; accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms—specifically the word “casino” and the letters “se” (which may be perceived as a reference to the country code Top-Level Domain for Sweden or a common abbreviation for the country)—may bear on the assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Accordingly, 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. 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 page 5 relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the 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. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie 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 forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel observes that neither the Respondent’s name, as disclosed in the Registrar’s verification, nor its initials, bear any similarity to the letters “MGM” or the other terms comprising the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Panel has confirmed through a search of the Global Brand Database that the Respondent holds no trademark rights over the terms included in the disputed domain name or the letters “MGM”. 1 The Panel further finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name fails to generate any rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. The Respondent’s website: (i) has prominently displayed the Complainant’s trademarks, including a version of its figurative BETMGM Mark, and continues to use the MGM Mark in its header and content; (ii) employs a design and black-and-yellow color scheme substantially similar to the Complainant’s official websites; (iii) fails to provide information regarding its true owner or the registrant of the disputed domain name; (iv) purportedly offers competing services in the same industry where the MGM Mark enjoys international reputation; and (v) includes links to third-party competing gambling sites and products or games from third-party providers. Such conduct constitutes an attempt to “pass off” the Respondent’s website as one associated with the Complainant, unfairly capitalizing on the reputation of the MGM and BETMGM Marks. The Panel finds that such use creates a false impression of affiliation, which cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests. On the contrary, this conduct indicates an intent to impersonate the Complainant to benefit from its reputation, either by diverting traffic for commercial gain or by potentially obtaining sensitive personal information. In this regard, the Panel notes that the website’s requirement for user registration and login may be indicative of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity—including impersonation or phishing—can never confer rights or legitimate interests upon a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. Finally, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name inherently generates confusion. By incorporating the MGM Mark followed by terms referring to the Complainant’s industry and a country where it operates (Sweden), which reduces the possibility of bona fide use to almost none, and leads to consider that the Respondent has created a name that deliberately targets the Complainant. Consequently, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. 1 Noting the general powers of a panel articulated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it is accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into public records if such information is useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.8. page 6 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 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 faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the circumstances and the evidence in the record point to the bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Panel observes that the MGM Mark is well known, as demonstrated by the evidence and consistently recognized in prior decisions with which this Panel concurs. See, e.g., MGM Resorts International v. Laurence Bartell, Sustin Bartell Waldman & Fitzgerald, WIPO Case No. D2024-4620; and MGM Resorts International v. Winners Bookmaking Pty Ltd, WIPO Case No. DAU2025-0033. The Panel has further confirmed the extensive use of the trademark online, where any search prominently displays results related to the Complainant and its reputed MGM Mark. The composition of the disputed domain name—deliberately incorporating the mark followed by the terms “casino” and “se”—clearly points to an intention to generate a false affiliation and the impression that the website at the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s official platform for the Swedish market, or one operated by an authorized distributor or affiliated company. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name was registered approximately only one year after the Complainant’s entry into the Swedish market in 2024. This timing strongly suggests that the Respondent had specific knowledge of the Complainant’s business expansion, and points to opportunistic bad faith, calculated to coincide with the Complainant’s increased brand presence in Sweden. The content of the Respondent’s website further confirms bad faith. It attempts to impersonate the Complainant and “pass off” as an official site by prominently displaying the MGM Mark, utilizing a color scheme and general “look and feel” substantially similar to the Complainant’s official websites, and concealing the identity of the true owner. The Panel notes that after the Complainant contacted the hosting provider, the Respondent removed the infringing BETMGM figurative mark and certain copyrighted images. Furthermore, the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name provides a non-prominent and insufficiently clear disclaimer in the footer, which refers to “Mgm Casino” instead of to the MGM Mark and/or the BETMGM Mark, and may easily go unnoticed by users. The Panel finds that such a disclaimer is insufficient to cure the Respondent’s bad faith. On the contrary, these changes and the disclaimer itself are considered an admission of the Respondent’s lack of rights, an acknowledgement of the potential for user confusion, and evidence of the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights. It is well-established that a respondent cannot “cure” bad faith registration by merely adding a disclaimer, especially when the domain name itself is inherently misleading. The Respondent’s attempt to impersonate the Complainant and derive unfair commercial benefit through this false association—including redirection to competing gambling websites and the potential collection of sensitive data—constitutes bad faith use, particularly in a high-risk environment. Any phishing scheme in this context is especially harmful to users, given that the gambling sector involves financial transactions. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Finally, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name disrupt the Complainant’s business and prejudice users, confirming an abusive pattern of bad faith under the Policy. In particular, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source or affiliation of the website, seeking to unfairly profit from such confusion through redirection to competing third-party sites and, potentially, as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been established. page 7 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 name <mgmcasino-se.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Reyes Campello Estebaranz/ Reyes Campello Estebaranz Sole Panelist Date: April 27, 2026

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