Erwin-casino.com + 3 more domains

The timeline behind erwin-casino.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 Staatliche Toto-Lotto GmbH Baden-Württemberg v. Domain Administrator, Nathan Carter, Scott Wayne, Name Redacted Case No. D2026-1422 1. The Parties The Complainant is Staatliche Toto-Lotto GmbH Baden-Württemberg, Germany, represented by OPPENLÄNDER Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB, Germany. The Respondents are Domain Administrator, United States of America (“United States”); Nathan Carter, United Kingdom; Scott Wayne, United Kingdom; and, Name Redacted 1 . 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <erwin-casino.com>, <erwincasino.com>, <erwincasino-de.com> and <erwin-casino-de.com> are registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 2, 2026. On April 7, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 7, 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 (-not available-) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 9, 2026, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity 1 The Respondent appears to have used the name and contact details of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this Decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in these proceedings, and has indicated Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST 12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788. page 2 and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 14, 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 April 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 7, 2026. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on April 10 and 12, 2026. The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on May 19, 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. On May 18, 2026, the Complainant requested the inclusion of two additional disputed domain names in the Complaint, namely <erwincasino-de.com> and <erwin-casino-de.com>. On May 20, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the additional disputed domain names. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the additional disputed domain names, which differed from the registrants of the previous disputed domain names. On May 22, 2026, the Panel issued the Procedural Order No. 1, in which the registrant information for the disputed domain names <erwin-casino-de.com> and <erwincasino-de.com> was shared with the Complainant in order to provide the opportunity to submit an amended Complaint no later than May 27, 2026. The Respondents were also provided with the opportunity to provide their comments by June 1, 2026. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 26, 2026. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a state-owned lottery company and gambling provider in the federal state of Baden- Württemberg, Germany. It offers lotteries and sports betting on behalf of the state. In addition, the Complainant operates virtual slot machine games under the name “erwin”. The Complainant owns ERWIN trademarks, including the German trademark registration no. 302020027705, ERWIN (figurative), filed on December 18, 2020 and registered on March 18, 2021, for goods and services in international classes 9, 28, 41 and 44. The disputed domain names were registered as follows: <erwincasino.com> on October 28, 2025 and <erwin-casino.com> on December 31, 2025. The additional disputed domain names <erwincasino-de.com> and <erwin-casino-de.com> were registered on April 20, 2026 and April 21, 2026 respectively. At the time of filing of the Complaint the disputed domain name <erwin-casino.com> lead to an error page. However previously and afterwards it lead to a website mimicking that of the Complainant. Currently, this disputed domain name and the additional disputed domain name <erwin-casino-de.com> redirect to a website in German at “www.erwincasino-1.com” which mimics the website of the Complainant and displays the Complainant’s trademarks and website components prominently, while being similar to the website to which this disputed domain name previously led. The disputed domain name <erwincasino.com> and the additional disputed domain name <erwincasino-de.com> currently redirect to a website in German at “www.erwincasino-review.com” which mimics the website of the Complainant and displays the Complainant’s trademarks and website components prominently. At the time of filing of the Complaint, <erwincasino.com> led to an identical website mimicking that of the Complainant. All these websites are practically identical to page 3 each other and they are also practically identical to the websites under the disputed domain name <erwin-casino.com> while the websites are all highly similar to the Complainant’s website. The additional disputed domain names <erwin-casino-de.com> and <erwincasino-de.com> at the time of the request for inclusion in the Complaint lead to websites mimicking that of Complaint, practically identical to the websites mentioned above (all the above henceforth “the websites”). The websites appear to be a gambling provider offering online gambling in the form of virtual slot machines, as alleged in the Complaint, without a required state license. The websites have copied the layout and basic design of the Complainant’s website. Additionally, they refer to the Complainant’s customer service and provide the Complainant’s actual telephone number. The list of top slots on the Complainant’s website and the Complainant’s mascot have been reproduced on the websites. The websites contain text that appears to be a review of the Complainant’s gambling service. The top slots offered on the websites are demo pages for virtual slot games, each displayed in an iFrame. Around two-thirds of the links lead to the external website “Glorion” (“www.glorion2.com”), while the rest lead to “Clariro” (“www.clariro3.com”) or “Morospin” (“www.81morospin22.com”). These third-party providers appear to offer slot machine games similar to those of the Complainant, which as alleged by the Complainant are probably illegal. The websites do not contain any legal notice or other means of identifying the website owner. Statements such as “Secure up to 500 free spins” (“Bis zu 500 Freispiele sichern”) and the “Log in/Register” button (“EINLOGGEN”, “REGISTRIEREN”) are displayed on the websites. As alleged by the Complainant, tabs such as “Terms and Conditions” or “Privacy Policy” on the websites lead to empty sub-levels. 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. B. Respondents On April 10, 2026, the registrant of the disputed domain name <erwincasino.com> (hereby referred to as “the Respondent” in this section of the Decision) sent an email communication to the Center stating that the Respondent is not the Complainant, that the Complaint was not authorized by the Respondent and that the Respondent has no intention of reaching an amicable solution. The Respondent requested the withdrawal of the Complaint and closure of the proceedings, stating that the two registrants are separate entities, unrelated to each other. On April 12, 2026, the Respondent sent an email communication to the Center stating that the two registrants are “operated by the same owner”. The Respondent then contested the Complaint. The Respondent claimed that the websites are “independent editorial review websites dedicated to providing objective, factual, and research-based information about the Erwin gaming platform for German-speaking users”. The Respondent denied that they provide any gambling services. As proof of the editorial nature of the websites the Respondent invoked the following statements on the websites: “Erwin [is] operated by the state-owned Toto-Lotto GmbH Baden-Württemberg (lotto-bw.de/automatenspiele/erwin)”, “We have no connection to the operator, are not financed by them, and do not act on their behalf”, “This website does not represent Erwin or Toto-Lotto GmbH and is not authorized to act on their behalf. Registration, deposits, gameplay, withdrawals and support are solely the responsibility of the operator”, “We are completely independent of casino operators and do not cooperate with external platforms or marketing partners”, “We are not an affiliated party of any casino, receive no payments from external providers, and publish exclusively on the basis of our own analyses and experience.”, “This website provides exclusively informational content and does not provide any services in the area of online gambling, payments, registration or promotions”. The Respondent did not provide any proof for these statements. The Respondent claimed legitimate interest in the disputed domain names on the basis that the websites are “independent editorial reviews of the Erwin gaming platform”. Lastly, the Respondent claimed that the disputed domain names were registered in good page 4 faith “with the sole intent of publishing independent editorial content”. Subsequently, the Respondent sent another email communication on April 12, 2026 stating that the emails of April 10, 2026 were sent in error and should be “excluded from the record”. The Respondent signed as “Editorial Team ErwinCasino.com / Erwin-Casino.com”. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the disputed domain names: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Addition of Domain Names According to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.12.2, “Requests for addition of domain names to a complaint after it has been notified to the respondent and the proceedings have formally commenced would be addressed by the panel on appointment”. On May 18, 2026, the Complainant submitted by email communication its request to add two additional disputed domain names to the proceeding. Per Complainant these domain names: a) lead to the same websites as the initial disputed domain names, b) were registered after the initiation of the proceeding; and c) share the same Registrar as the initial disputed domain names. In view of the above, the Panel finds that the additional disputed domain names are prima facie registered by the same or related Respondent and it would be practical and efficient to address them in the present proceeding. The request to add the additional disputed domain names is therefore accepted. The Panel shall address the disputed domain names all together in this Decision. Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different disputed domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The Respondent initially denied that the named registrants of the initial disputed domain names were the same entity or under common control and subsequently revoked this statement and stated that they are of common control. As regards the additional disputed domain names, the Respondent did not provide any comments. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. page 5 As regards common control, the Panel notes that: a) the Respondent already admitted and confirmed that the two initial disputed domain names are under common control; and b) as regards the additional disputed domain names: i) these initially lead to identical websites with one another and identical to the websites, ii) they currently redirect to the same websites to which the initial disputed domain names redirect, iii) all websites are identical, iv) all websites mimic the Complainant’s website, v) the additional disputed domain name <erwincasino-de.com> lists as named Registrant the attorney signing the Complaint, providing false Registrant details, vi) the additional disputed domain names were registered with one day difference, vii) they were both registered after the Complaint was filed and the proceedings initiated, viii) all disputed domain names have the same structure, ix) all disputed domain names were registered with the same Registrar, x) the two additional disputed domain names are identical to each other save for a hyphen, xi) the additional disputed domain names both include the identical element “de” which is the sole differentiation to the initial disputed domain names, xii) the Respondent acknowledged in the email communication of April 12, 2026 that the “email addresses belong to the same individual — the owner and operator of both domain names and “This message is being sent from “...@gmail.com”, which is the primary contact address of the registrant”. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 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 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 Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “casino”, “de” and a hyphen, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik, WIPO Case No. D2002-0122). 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 page 6 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 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 names. The Respondent has not effectively 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. As the Complainant demonstrated, the disputed domain names resolve to the websites purportedly offering services similar to those of the Complainant and impersonating the Complainant. The websites are actually aimed at providing gambling services to the users without having a legal license for providing such services. The websites include links to third party apparently illegal gambling sites and statements such as “Secure up to 500 free spins” (“Bis zu 500 Freispiele sichern”) and the “Log in/Register” button (“EINLOGGEN”, “REGISTRIEREN”) which clearly indicate their commercial function. The statements of the Respondent that the websites were merely informative websites is deemed as unfounded and pretextual (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.6). Furthermore, the websites copied the website of the Complainant, copied its website design, trademarks, colours, its mascot, even its customer service phone number. No information on the owner of the websites appeared on the websites, and the “Terms and Conditions” or “Privacy Policy” on the websites lead to empty sub-levels, per Complaint. The so-called “disclaimers” of the Respondent invoked in its informal response were not proved and they do not constitute actual disclaimers in the opinion of the Panel. The websites prominently displayed the Complainant’s trademarks, the “disclaimers” were not totally clear and were not proved to be present and much less so sufficiently prominent (cf WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.2). The identical use of the Complainant’s trademarks and logos for identical services on websites that looked exactly like the Complainant’s website, gave the impression that the websites were operated by the Complainant or a Complainant’s licensee. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds 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 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 Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. Because the Complainant’s mark was used and registered at the time of the disputed domain names’ registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent had the Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the disputed domain names (Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226; Société des Produits Nestlé SA v. Telmex Management Service, WIPO Case No. D2002-0070). Furthermore, the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s mark plus the additional term “casino” which is exactly the field of business of the Complainant and, where applicable the denomination “de” for the country of Germany, which is the country of operation of the Complainant. The Panel also notes that the websites mimicked that of the Complainant, prominently displaying its trademarks and purporting to be the Complainant. page 7 The websites copied the design and trademarks of the Complainant, as well as its customer services number. The claims of the Respondent that the websites are informative/criticism websites are not deemed convincing. Users are directed to third party websites through links in the websites, that provide presumably illegal gambling services, namely slot machine games. The websites contain wording that invites users to make use of gambling services. In particular, active promotion takes place with statements like: “Anmelden, spielen und Freispiele sichern! Bis zu 500 Freispiele sichern Jetzt anmelden” “Sign up, play, and get free spins! Get up to 500 free spins. Sign up now” “Bis zu 500 Freispiele sichern” Nur für Neukunden. 30 Tage gültig. Du erhältst 50 Freispiele im Wert von je 0,10 € pro 50 € Spieleinsatz. Jetz anmelden” “Get up to 500 free spins” “For new customers only. Valid for 30 days. You will receive 50 free spins worth €0.10 each for every €50 wagered. Sign up now”. Furthermore, the criticism and information texts do not appear to be genuine but merely pretextual. As regard the invoking of “disclaimers” by Respondent these, as aforementioned, were not proved and in any case would not constitute proper disclaimers that enable the users to understand that the websites have nothing to do with the Complainant, given that the websites copy the layout of the Complainant’s website, its trademarks, website design, mascot, even customer service phone numbers. The users, based on the websites’ layout, would be expected to assume that by clicking buttons such as “Log In” and “Register,” they would be dealing with the Complainant or a Complainant’s authorized agent. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. As regards the disputed domain name <erwin-casino.com> it was filed through a proxy service, which is also an indication of bad faith. Last, in the case of the additional disputed domain names <erwincasino-de.com> and <erwin-casino-de.com>, bad faith is all the more evident, as they were registered after the commencement of the proceeding was received. The fact that the disputed domain name <erwincasino-de.com> was registered using the Complainant’s representative’s name also supports the Panel’s findings on bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 <erwin-casino.com>, <erwincasino.com>, <erwincasino-de.com> and <erwin-casino-de.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: June 5, 2026

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