Virginbetuk.com

The timeline behind virginbetuk.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 Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Yury Zanchenko Case No. D2026-1572 1. The Parties The Complainant is Virgin Enterprises Limited, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented by Venner Shipley LLP, UK. The Respondent is Yury Zanchenko, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <virginbetuk.com> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 14, 2026. On April 15, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 15, 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 April 16, 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 April 21, 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 April 24, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 14, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 18, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Simone Huser as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 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 part of the Virgin Group and is the owner of the VIRGIN brand and associated trademarks. The VIRGIN brand was originally established as a business selling popular music records by mail order under the Virgin name. Since then, operations have grown significantly, and today VIRGIN branded businesses have a diverse range of sectors. There are currently more than 40 Virgin Businesses with more than 70,000 employees across five continents. In 2019, the Virgin Group launched an online sports betting application available in the UK called Virgin Bet, which operates under the mark VIRGIN BET. The Complainant holds inter alia the domain names <virgin.com> and <virginbet.com>. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including: - VIRGIN, UK Trademark Registration No. UK00003163121, registered on July 29, 2016, in international classes 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45; and -VIRGIN BET, European Union Trademark Registration No. 016151102, registered on July 11, 2017, in international classes 9, 16, 28, 38, 41, and 42. The disputed domain name was registered on July 13, 2025. According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to offer online gaming, betting and casino services. 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 as follows: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark in which the Complainant has rights, because it incorporates the Complainant’s VIRGIN BET mark in its entirety, and only differs by the addition of the geographical term “uk”. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use, or demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The website at the disputed domain name contains a logo that is identical to the Complainant’s registered logo. Hence, the Respondent’s website is intended to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the reputation that exists in the Complainant’s marks. The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s businesses and the Complainant’s well-known marks when it registered the disputed domain name. page 3 The Respondent’s website purports to offer online gaming and betting services under the Complainant’s marks. By diverting Internet users away from the Complainant’s official website to its own site for commercial gain, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Matters The Panel notes that the Respondent’s postal address is stated to be in Ukraine. Noting that Ukraine is subject to an international conflict at the date of this Decision, the Panel is to consider, in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Rules, whether the proceeding should continue. 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 fair opportunity to present its case, and also that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. The Panel notes that the Center sent the Written Notice of the Complaint to the Respondent’s address in Ukraine, as per the information disclosed by the Registrar. Postal notification is reported to have been registered for collection on May 11, 2026. However, the Panel notes that the postal service was unable to deliver the Written Notice sent by registered post to the Respondent’s address in Ukraine (“Recipient absent”). It appears that the Notification of Complaint emails were delivered to the Respondent’s email address, as provided by the Registrar. However, although it cannot be guaranteed that it was actually delivered to the Respondent, there is no evidence that the case notification sent to the administrative contact’s address in the United States of America and the Respondent’s and administrative contact’s email address, as per the information disclosed by the Registrar, was not successfully delivered. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Panel is of the view that the proceeding 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, including the privacy service’s email address obtainable by a public WhoIs search, the Respondent’s email address as confirmed by the Registrar, the postmaster address as required by the Rules, and the Written Notice. Moreover, as described below, the Panel believes the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith to target the Complainant and mislead consumers. The Panel concludes that the Parties have been given a fair opportunity to present their 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 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. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. page 4 The entirety of the mark is reproduced 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 here, “uk”, 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 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 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 notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring services that are the same as the Complainant’s services and that the Complainant's trademark and logo VIRGIN is prominently reproduced on the website under the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and used to mislead unsuspecting Internet users into thinking that the website is owned by, affiliated with or endorsed by the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, such as impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. Based on the available record, 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. 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. page 5 In the view of the Panel, noting that that the Complainant’s trademark rights predate the registration of the disputed domain name and considering the distinctiveness of the VIRGIN trademark, and that the disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring the Complainant’s trademark and logo, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. In the circumstances of this case, this is evidence of registration in bad faith. In the view of the Panel, the impression given by the website under the disputed domain name would cause Internet users to believe that the Respondent is somehow associated with the Complainant when, in fact, it is not. The Panel holds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website in the sense of Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). Moreover, Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here claimed impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Noting the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and the failure of the Respondent to submit a response, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in the circumstances of this case, constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 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 name <virginbetuk.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Simone Huser/ Simone Huser Sole Panelist Date: June 10, 2026

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