Lottoland-ireland.com

The timeline behind lottoland-ireland.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 Lottoland Holdings Limited v. Daryna Shkelebei Case No. D2026-1599 1. The Parties The Complainant is Lottoland Holdings Limited, Gibraltar, United Kingdom, represented by Dentons UK and Middle East LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Daryna Shkelebei, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <lottoland-ireland.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 15, 2026. On April 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On April 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 April 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 April 22, 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 23, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 13, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 15, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 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. Further Procedural Considerations 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. Since the Respondent’s mailing address is stated to be in Ukraine which is subject to an international conflict at the date of this Decision that may impact case notification, it is appropriate for the Panel to consider, in accordance with its discretion under paragraph 10 of the Rules, whether the proceeding should continue. Having considered the circumstances of the case, the Panel is of the view that it should. The Panel notes that the Center has used the Respondent’s email address as registered with the Registrar for the purpose of notifying the Complaint, and to the postmaster email address associated with the Disputed Domain Name, as specified by the Rules. Furthermore, the Complaint was forwarded to the Respondent’s postal address as registered in the WhoIs. It is moreover noted that, for the reasons which are set out later in this Decision, the Panel has no doubt (albeit in the absence of any Response) that the Respondent registered and has used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith and with the intention of unfairly targeting the Complainant’s goodwill in its trademark. The Panel concludes that the Parties have been given a fair opportunity to present their case so that the administrative proceeding should take place with due expedition. Therefore, the Panel will proceed to a Decision accordingly. 5. Factual Background The Complainant is part of the Lottoland group of companies established in 2013 and specialises in offering online betting services on the outcomes of over 30 international lottery draws. The Complainant’s group operates in over 10 markets, employs over 400 people and reached 20 million online customers worldwide. The Complainant holds trademark rights for LOTTOLAND, such as the following: - the European Union Trademark Registration number 011369981 for LOTTOLAND (word), filed on November 23, 2012, registered on April 20, 2017, covering services in International Class 42; - the United Kingdom Trademark Registration number UK00911369981 for LOTTOLAND (stylized), filed on November 23, 2012, and registered on April 20, 2017, covering services in International Classes 41 and 42; and - the International Trademark Registration number 1679409 for LOTTOLAND (word), registered on March 1, 2022, covering goods and services in International Classes 9, 35, 41, and 42. The Complainant provides its online services on various websites incorporating LOTTOLAND such as “www.lottoland.com”, “www.lottoland.ie”, “www.lottoland.co.uk”, “www.lottoland.asia”, or “www.lottoland.at”. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 28, 2025, and, at the time of filing the Complaint, it was used in relation to an online gambling website, displaying the LOTTOLAND trademark and logo, and closely imitating the look and feel of the Complainant’s websites (as they appeared before the rebranding in early 2025), by using the same fonts, colour scheme, general layout, also displaying a contact email address page 3 which is in fact the Complainant’s official support email address and purporting to be the Complainant in the FAQ’s section. Furthermore, the website under the Disputed Domain Name displays links redirecting Internet users to third party competing websites, as well as active Login/Registration buttons inviting users to create and/or access online user accounts. According to Complainant’s investigations provided as annexes to the Complaint, the Respondent has registered at least 59 domain names, all created in 2025, and the vast majority of such domain names relate to online gambling brands. 6. 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: - the Complainant is the world’s leading lottery betting business; its business is very well-known, offering online lottery betting services with a significant reputation; - the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LOTTOLAND trademark since it incorporates it in its entirety with the addition of a geographical descriptor, which should be disregarded for the purpose of the comparison under the first element; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, the Complainant has never authorised or licensed the Respondent to use the LOTTOLAND trademark or any domain name incorporating it, the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name; - the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith mainly because: (i) the Complainant has a strong reputation and is the owner of numerous and well-known trademark registrations for LOTTOLAND in the major economic territories of the United Kingdom, Ireland, European Union, as well as other major jurisdictions worldwide; (ii) the Disputed Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s mark plus the geographic descriptor of one of the countries in which the Complainant operates. This, together with the content of the website under the the Disputed Domain Name, indicates that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name and is using the corresponding website to impersonate the Complainant and misappropriate its goodwill; (iii) the use of the Disputed Domain Name, copying the look and feel of the Complainant’s websites, in order to redirect Internet traffic to other websites offering competing products to those of the Complainant’s business; (iv) further, when accessing the links available on the website under the Disputed Domain Name, the Internet users may believe they are accessing the website of an authorised and regulated lottery betting provider, and may be induced to provide sensitive information under false pretences or click on the various links directing the customer to betting websites unrelated to the Complainant and this creates a very serious risk to the general public of fraud arising from use of the Disputed Domain Name, including the apparent harvesting of users’ confidential login details, potentially enabling unauthorised access to user accounts; and (v) the Respondent’s demonstrated pattern of registering and using domain names that impersonate other well-known gambling operators. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 4 7. Discussion and Findings Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is 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 Name. See 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, sections 1.2.1. and 1.4.1. The Panel finds the mark is 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. While the addition of other signs, here a hyphen and the term “ireland”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such elements 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 the 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 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. According to the evidence, the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a website promoting services identical to those of the Complainant, displaying the Complainant’s trademark and logo, copying the look and feel of the Complainant’s websites, as well as displaying its official email address and purporting to be the Complainant. UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for page 5 illegitimate activity (such as claimed 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 also notes that the composition of the Disputed Domain Name itself carries a risk of implied affiliation given that the Complainant’s trademark has been reproduced in the Disputed Domain Name, together with the geographic term “ireland”, associated with one of the locations where the Complainant operates. 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 Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith, with knowledge of the LOTTOLAND trademark and the Complainant, because it fully incorporates the Complainant’s mark which predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name with more than ten years, together with the geographical term, “ireland”, Complainant operating in this country as well. Further, the use of the Disputed Domain Name reinforces such finding. 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. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location” is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. Creating a website using the Complainant’s mark, displaying the LOTTOLAND trademark and logo, copying the look and feel of the Complainant’s websites, presenting itself as being the Complainant, redirecting to third parties competing websites, as well as luring the Internet users to potentially provide personal confidential information in order to create/access user accounts, in this Panel’s view, the Respondent has intended to attract Internet users accessing the website at the Disputed Domain Name who may be confused and believe that the website is held, controlled by, or somehow affiliated or related to the Complainant, for its commercial gain. The use of a domain name for illegal activity such as claimed impersonation/passing off can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent and it is considered evidence of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. In addition, the Panel notes that the Respondent has registered at least more than 50 domain names comprising third parties’ trademarks, as mentioned in Section 5 above. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. page 6 8. 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, <lottoland-ireland.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. /Marilena Comanescu/ Marilena Comanescu Sole Panelist Date: June 2, 2026

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