Betmgm-casino-nederland.com + 8 more domains

The timeline behind betmgm-casino-nederland.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 MGM Resorts International v. YURY ZANCHENKO Case No. D2026-1735 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 YURY ZANCHENKO, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <betmgm-casino-nederland.com>, <betmgmcasino-nl.com>, <betmgm- inloggen.com>, <betmgminloggen.com>, <betmgmnederland.com>, <betmgm-online-casino.com>, <casinobetmgm.com>, <casino-betmgm-nl.com>, and <casinobetmgm-nl.com> are 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 23, 2026. On April 23, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 23, 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 (Domain Protection Services, Inc.) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 24, 2016, 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 27, 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 30, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 20, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 21, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Willem J. H. Leppink as the sole panelist in this matter on May 28, 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 (whether this is indeed accurate is not clear), 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 all the circumstances of the case, the Panel is of the view that it should. The Panel has reached this conclusion in part because the Panel does not believe the Respondent’s purported mailing address in Ukraine to be genuine. The Panel notes in particular that that address includes a postal code which differs from the postal code connected to the relevant street address. It is moreover noted that, for the reasons which are set out later in this Decision, the Panel has no serious 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, and so that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition the Panel will proceed to a Decision accordingly. 5. Factual Background The following facts are undisputed. The Complainant is a global gaming and entertainment company, operating hotels and casinos, meeting and conference spaces, live and theatrical entertainment, as well as a selection of restaurants, nightlife, and retail options since the 1960s. In 2023, the Complainant was listed as one of the largest casino companies in the world by revenue on the third-party platform “Statista”, making USD 16.16 billion in revenue that year. In 2018, the Complainant ventured into the digital betting space with the launch of BetMGM, a gaming, casino and online sports betting platform. The brand operates both online and within the Complainant’s network of casinos in the United States. BetMGM reported a net revenue of USD 2.1 billion in 2024 and operates in 29 active markets as of November 2024, including the Dutch market for which it operates through the website to which the domain name <betmgm.nl> resolves. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for its BetMGM mark, including United States trademark registration No. 6025462 BETMGM in classes 9 and 41, with a registration date of March 31, 2020 and the European Union trademark registration No. 018390081 BETMGM, in classes 9 and 41, with a registration date of June 26, 2021. page 3 The disputed domain names were all registered on November 7, 2025. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to live websites which are impersonating the Complainant while promoting competing gambling services. Every link on the Respondent’s websites took Internet users to an unrelated third-party gambling website located at “www.winplace1.com”. 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 names. Notably, the Complainant contends the following. The Respondent’s websites feature the Complainant’s BetMGM logotype on several places, including in their headers and footers, and as the websites’ favicons. As such the Respondent’s websites have look-and-feel of the Complainant’s website located at <betmgm.nl>. The Respondent is not known as “betmgm”. The Respondent can also not claim a legitimate “fair use” interest as the nature of the disputed domain names carries a risk of implied affiliation. Every link on the Respondent’s websites, at least when accessed from the Netherlands (which is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands), leads to the domain name <winplace1.com>, a competitor of the Complainant. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as envisioned by the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 7. Discussion and Findings 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. 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 in the disputed domain names, including “casino”, “nederland”, “inloggen”, “nl”, and “online” 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 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. page 4 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 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here claimed impersonation, 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 with the registration and use of the nine disputed domain names has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark and has also engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here claimed impersonation, 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. 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 names <betmgm-casino-nederland.com>, <betmgmcasino-nl.com>, <betmgm-inloggen.com>, <betmgminloggen.com>, <betmgmnederland.com>, <betmgm-online- casino.com>, <casinobetmgm.com>, <casino-betmgm-nl.com>, and <casinobetmgm-nl.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Willem J. H. Leppink / Willem J. H. Leppink Sole Panelist Date: June 5, 2026

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