Sunnwin.ltd + 9 more domains

The timeline behind sunnwin.ltd

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 Sunwin Information Technology LLC v. Srdan Andelkovic, Sunwin Vibes Limitada, Tran Hoang Thai Case No. D2026-1548 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sunwin Information Technology LLC, United Arab Emirates, internally represented. The Respondent is Srdan Andelkovic, Sunwin Vibes Limitada, Costa Rica, and Tran Hoang Thai, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names <sunnwin.ltd>, <sunvibes.org>, <sunwinchuan.net> and <sunwin.spot> are registered with NameCheap, Inc. The disputed domain name <sunwins.ag> and <suunwin.ag> are registered in Key-Systems GmbH. The disputed domain names <sunwin01.app> and <sunwin02.app> are registered with Nicenic International Group Co., Limited. The disputed domain names <sunwin2026.tv> and <sunwin69.app> are registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrars”). (Collectively, the “Disputed Domain Names”.) 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 13, 2026. On April 13, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On April 13 and 14, 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. page 2 The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 15, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 20, 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 21, 2026 In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 11, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 12, 2026. The Center on May 20, 2026, contacted the Respondent Tran Hoang Thai about a technical notice issue and invited the Respondent to indicate an intention to participate in the proceeding. However, the Respondent did not reply to said communication. The Center appointed Nicholas Weston as the sole panelist in this matter on June 16, 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 operates an online gaming business that started in Vietnam in 2019 and has expanded its operations to the European Union, and other key territories under relevant intellectual property licenses. It holds a small portfolio of registrations for its trademark, and variations of it, in three countries. Examples include United States Registration No. 7913235, A A A SUN.WIN (figurative), registered on August 26, 2025 for services in international class 41, United Arab Emirates trademark registration No. 447027 for the mark SUNWIN (figurative), registered on July 4, 2025, for services in international class 41 United Arab Emirates trademark registration No. 453011 for the mark SUNWIN (word), registered on October 10, 2025, for services in international class 41. The Complainant owns numerous domain names that comprise or contain the trademark SUNWIN, including the domain names <sunwin.fun>, <sunwin.sx> and <sun.win>. The Disputed Domain Name <sunnwin.ltd> was registered on February 4, 2026. The Disputed Domain Name <sunvibes.org> was registered on March 11, 2026. The Disputed Domain Name <sunwinchuan.net> was registered on March 18, 2026. The Disputed Domain Name <sunwin.spot> was registered on May 20, 2025. The Disputed Domain Name <sunwins.ag> was registered on March 21, 2026. The Disputed Domain Name <suunwin.ag> was registered on March 21, 2026. The Disputed Domain Name <sunwin01.app> was registered on January 24, 2026 page 3 The Disputed Domain Name <sunwin02.app> was registered on January 24, 2026. The Disputed Domain Name <sunwin2026.tv> was registered on March 24, 2026. The Disputed Domain Name <sunwin69.app> was registered on March 18, 2026. The Disputed Domain Names do not resolve to active websites. 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 cites its trademark registrations for the mark SUNWIN and variations of it, in a few countries, as prima facie evidence of ownership. The Complainant contends that its rights in that the mark SUNWIN mark, including its asserted common law rights in that mark, predate the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Names. It submits that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to its trademark, because each is comprised of the SUNWIN trademark along with either typographical misspellings or terms such as “chuan”, “01”, “02”, “69”, “2026” under a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) or country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”), and that these variables are not sufficient to avoid the confusing similarity. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names because “the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names” and “[t]he Respondent, without the Complainant’s authorization or consent, has registered domain names that are almost identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known Sunwin Trade Marks and is using the disputed domain names for similar business activities” and that none of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply. Finally, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names were, and currently are, in bad faith, contrary to the Policy and the Rules having regard to the prior use and “globally known” nature of the Complainant’s trademark. On the issue of registration, the Complainant contends that it has been targeted by “the Respondent [who] is a habitual infringer, copying the trademarks, copyrights, design and other proprietary relating to Complainant's games and websites, thereby impersonating itself as the Complainant”. On the issue of use the Complainant contends that “the Respondent intentionally chose and registered these disputed domain names to opportunistically exploit the Complainant’s reputation through the potential of that name to generate confusion of Internet users for the Respondent’s eventual pecuniary benefit, such as by diverting those users away from the Complainant’s website to the competing site of the Respondent and thereby depriving the Complainant of gambling revenue which those Internet users would otherwise yield”. It also contends that “the Respondent’s domains and website can be used for the purpose of phishing and impersonating” and that the Respondent is a serial offender. It contends that “[t]he Respondent’s activities constitute evidence of bad faith falling within paragraph4(b)(iii) of the rules”. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 4 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue A. Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the 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 disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. 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 Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes the following: — other than the Disputed Domain Name <sunwin.spot>, the Disputed Domain Names were registered within a two month period in 2026; — other than the Disputed Domain Name <sunwinchuan.net>, the Disputed Domain Names share the same Registrant organization and the same postal address in San Jose, Costa Rica despite not always sharing the same Registrar; — other than the Disputed Domain Name <sunwinchuan.net>, the Disputed Domain Names share the same contact telephone number even though they are registered through three different Registrars; — the Disputed Domain Names <sunnwin.ltd>, <sunvibes.org>, and <sunwinchuan.net> are registered with the same Registrar; — the Disputed Domain Names <sunwin01.app> and <sunwin02.app> share the same Registrant; — other than the Disputed Domain Name <sunvibes.org>, the Disputed Domain Names share a similar pattern using the Complainant’s SUNWIN trademark either identically “sunwin” or with similar typographical errors “sunnwin”, “sunwins” and “suunwin”, followed by terms that are generic, numerical or descriptive such as “01”, “02”, “2026”, “69”, and “chuan”; and, — the Disputed Domain Names <sunwin.ltd> <sunwinchuan.net>, <sunvibes.org>, <sunwin.spot>, and <sunwin69.app>, prior to disclosure, had their Registrant details masked by the same privacy service, “Withheld for Privacy ehf” located in Reykjavik, Iceland even though they are registered through two different Registrars. The evidence submitted points to the fact that all the Disputed Domain Names are subject of common control by the Respondents. The Respondents had the opportunity but did not respond to the Complaint. 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 page 5 domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 6.2. Substantive Issues Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the following: (i) that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and (iii) that the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are 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 Names. 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. The requirements of the first element for purposes of the Policy may be satisfied by a trademark registered in any jurisdiction. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has registered trademark rights in the mark SUNWIN in a number of countries. Turning to whether the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the SUNWIN trademark, the Panel observes that — the Disputed Domain Name <sunnwin.ltd> is comprised of: (a) the Complainant’s trademark; (b) letter “n” between the words “sun” and “win” in the trademark; (c)followed by the gTLD “.ltd”. — the Disputed Domain Name <sunvibes.org> is comprised of: (a) the word “sun” that is also contained in the Complainant’s trademark; (b) followed by the word “vibes”; (c) followed by the gTLD “.org”. — the Disputed Domain Name <sunwinchuan.net> is comprised of: (a) the Complainant’s trademark; (b) followed by the word “chuan”; (c) followed by the gTLD “.net”. — the Disputed Domain Name <sunwin.spot> is comprised of: (a) the Complainant’s trademark; (b) followed by the gTLD “.spot”. — the Disputed Domain Name <sunwins.ag> is comprised of: (a) the Complainant’s trademark; (b) followed by the letter “s”; (c) followed by the ccTLD “.ag”. — the Disputed Domain Name <suunwin.ag> is comprised of: (a) the Complainant’s trademark with an additional letter “u”; (b) followed by the ccTLD “.ag”. — the Disputed Domain Name <sunwin01.app> is comprised of: (a) the Complainant’s trademark; (b) followed by the numbers “01”; (c) followed by the gTLD “.app”. — the Disputed Domain Name <sunwin02.app> is comprised of: (a) the Complainant’s trademark; (b) followed by the numbers “02”; (c) followed by the gTLD “.app”. page 6 — the Disputed Domain Name <sunwin2026.tv> is comprised of: (a) the Complainant’s trademark; (b) followed by the year “2026”; (c) followed by the gTLD “.tv”. — the Disputed Domain Name <sunwin69.app> is comprised of: (a) the Complainant’s trademark; (b) followed by the numbers “69”; (c) followed by the gTLD “.app”. It is well established that the gTLD or ccTLD used as part of a domain name is generally disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. The relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of each of the Disputed Domain Names, specifically: “sunnwin”, “sunvibes”, “sunwinchuan”, “sunwin”, “sunwins”, “suunwin”, “sunwin01”, “sunwin02”, “sunwin2026”, and “sunwin69”, respectively. The Panel finds that save for the Disputed Domain Name <sunvibes.org>, the mark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Names. The Complainant does not have a trademark or any evidence of exclusive rights in the highly generic and descriptive word “sun”. The Panel rules that the word “sunvibes” is not identical or confusingly similar to the trademark “SUNWIN” as required by UDNDR Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i). Accordingly, save for the Disputed Domain Name <sunvibes.org>, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy also. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. Although, the addition of the such as “chuan,” “01”, “02”, “2026” or “69”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements in relation to the Disputed Domain Names, the Panel finds the addition of those terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established for all of the Disputed Domain Names except the Disputed Domain Name <sunvibes.org>. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has not been established for the Disputed Domain Name <sunvibes.org>. 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 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 Names (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 there is no indication that the Respondent was commonly known by the term “SUNWIN” prior to registration of the Disputed Domain Names. The Complainant has not licensed, permitted, or authorized the Respondent to use the trademark SUNWIN. The Panel also notes that the composition of the Disputed Domain Names carries a risk of implied affiliation (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1). The Panel notes the submissions that the Disputed Domain Names were used in connection with “phishing” and has supplied evidence in the form of screen captures of gambling websites where the Respondent has clearly impersonated the Complainant, but has not supplied any evidence of webpages that seek to capture private user information. The Panel does not accept the Complainant’s claims of phishing without evidence, but does find that the evidence supports a finding that page 7 Respondent illegitimately impersonated the Complainant. The Panel accepts the evidence that each of the Disputed Domain Names currently resolve and to inactive webpages, and finds this does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, given the capacity to mislead Internet users. 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 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. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established for the Disputed Domain Names. 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. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel finds that the evidence in the case shows the Respondent registered and has used all of the Disputed Domain Names (except <sunvibes.org>) in bad faith. On the issue of registration, taking into account the composition of the remaining Disputed Domain Names and the distinctive nature of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s trademark SUNWIN when it registered the Disputed Domain Names. The Panel observes that the Disputed Domain Name <sunwin.spot> was registered on May 20, 2025, prior to the registration of the Complainant’s first trademark registration in August 2025. The Complainant has not supplied clear evidence to support a finding of common law rights in its trademark prior to August 2025. Where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.8.1. However, in Sunwin Information Technology LLC v. Srdan Andelkovic, Sunwin Vibes Limitada, Sunwin Vibes, Sunwin Vibes Content Writing Service, Srdan Andelkoic, Sunwin Vibes Limitada, WIPO Case No. D2025-5040 the Panel noted, in relation to the same Respondent as this proceeding: “Respondent stated in his Response he was fully aware of the use of the SUNWIN mark at the time of the disputed domain name registrations and since at least April 2024.” In this context, and noting the prior use of the Disputed Domain Name <sunwin.spot>, it appears clear to the Panel that the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s (nascent) trademark rights when the registering the Disputed Domain Name <sunwin.spot>. This Panel therefore finds that there is no reason for the Respondent to have registered the Disputed Domain Names other than to trade off the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s widely-known trademark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. On the issue of use, the Disputed Domain Names do not currently resolve to active websites. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under page 8 the doctrine of passive holding. Although panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the Complainant’s widely-known SUNWIN trademark, the composition of the Disputed Domain Names, the Respondent’s use of a privacy service to conceal its identity, and the Respondent’s failure to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Complainant’s evidence is also that the Disputed Domain Names resolved, for a period of time, to, websites where it submits: “[t]he content posted on these infringing and disputing domains of the Respondent(s) creating a presumption in the mind of people and gives the impression to anyone visiting the website that the Respondent carries out activities similar to Complainant as the licensees of the Complainant or is an official representative of the Complainant and has the due authority to use the Sunwin Trade Marks.” Targeting of this nature is a common example of bad faith as referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and identified in many previous UDRP decisions. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed impersonation or passing off, 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 Disputed Domain Names constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy in relation to the Disputed Domain Names <sunnwin.ltd>, <sunwinchuan.net>, <sunwins.ag>, <sunwin.spot>, <sunwin01.app>, <sunwin02.app>, <sunwin2026.tv>, <sunwin69.app>, and <suunwin.ag>. 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 <sunnwin.ltd>, <sunwinchuan.net>, <sunwins.ag>, <sunwin.spot>, <sunwin01.app>, <sunwin02.app>, <sunwin2026.tv>, <sunwin69.app>, and <suunwin.ag> be transferred to the Complainant. For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint in relation to the Disputed Domain Name <sunvibes.org> is denied. /Nicholas Weston/ Nicholas Weston Sole Panelist Date: June 9, 2026

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