Bk8khmer.com

The timeline behind bk8khmer.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 Black Hawk Technology Co. Ltd v. Temnyy Viktor Case No. D2026-2089 1. The Parties The Complainant is Black Hawk Technology Co. Ltd, United Kingdom, represented internally. The Respondent is Temnyy Viktor, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bk8khmer.com> is registered with Nicnames, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 15, 2026. On May 15, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 19, 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 (Unknown/Privacy-Protected Registrant) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 19, 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 May 21, 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 May 26, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 15, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 16, 2026. The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on June 29, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant offers online gambling services in Asia and elsewhere under the mark BK8. The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks for BK8 including International Registration No. 1616888, registered on July 14, 2021, in classes 9 and 41. The Complainant operates a website at “www.bk8.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on January 8, 2025. As of May 12, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a gambling website in the Khmer language that was branded with the Complainant’s BK8 logo and entitled “BK8 Cambodia Review – Top Online Casino and Sportsbook” (English version). The English version of the website further states “In this review, I will share my personal experience and key points. Hopefully it will help you make a good decision.” 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Location of Respondent 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 postal address is stated to be in Ukraine, which is subject to an international conflict at the date of this decision and which may impact notifications relating to this proceeding, it is appropriate for the Panel to consider, in accordance with its discretion under paragraph 10 of the Rules, whether the proceeding should continue. The Panel notes that, while written notice of the Complaint was not delivered to the Respondent’s address in Ukraine, the Complaint was delivered to the Respondent’s email address, as provided by the Registrar. Furthermore, for the reasons set out below, 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 trade mark. The Panel concludes that the Parties have been given a fair opportunity to present their case and, in order that the administrative proceeding continues with due expedition, the Panel will proceed to a decision accordingly. page 3 6.2 Substantive Issues 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 trade mark 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 trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. 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, “khmer”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term 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 recognised 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. As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and as further discussed under the third element below, the Panel considers that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking the Complainant’s goods and/or services. Such use of the disputed domain name is not bona fide. Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy are relevant in the circumstances of this case. Although the English version of the website at the disputed domain name presents itself as a review of the Complainant’s services - including by way of the title “BK8 Cambodia Review – Top Online Casino and Sportsbook” and the statement that the author would share personal experience and key points (as noted under “Factual Background” above) - the Panel finds that, notwithstanding these representations, there is in fact no genuine review on the website. Even if such a review were present, the composition of the disputed page 4 domain name together with the prominent use of the Complainant’s BK8 logo on the associated website, would in any event create a risk of confusion for Internet users as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. The Panel further notes that the website at the disputed domain name displayed buttons titled “ENTER”, “REGISTER” and “Start now”, which are not indicative of a genuine review or criticism website. 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 considers that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to a website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. First, the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s distinctive mark plus “khmer”, denoting a Khmer-language version of the Complainant’s website. Second, the Respondent's website makes prominent use of the Complainant's BK8 logo and branding, which creates a significant risk of confusion among Internet users as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the website with the Complainant. 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 <bk8khmer.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: July 13, 2026

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