Kaasino.bet

The timeline behind kaasino.bet

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 Play North Limited v. Chris Sanico Case No. D2026-2214 1. The Parties The Complainant is Play North Limited, Malta, represented by BarentsKrans N.V., Netherlands (Kingdom of the) (“the Netherlands”). The Respondent is Chris Sanico, Cyprus. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <kaasino.bet> is registered with URL Solutions, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 22, 2026. On May 22, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 22, 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 (Fortaprime SRL) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 26, 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 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 May 29, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 18, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 19, 2026. page 2 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. 4. Factual Background Since 2021, the Complainant has supplied online gambling services in the Netherlands under the mark KANSINO via a website at “www.kansino.nl”. The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks for KANSINO including Benelux trade mark No. 1458804, registered on February 3, 2022, in classes 9, 28, 38, and 41. The disputed domain name was registered on April 20, 2024. As of May 19, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a Dutch-language gambling website that was branded with a “kaasino” logo. In Play North Ltd v. Fortaprime SRL, WIPO Case No. D2025-4408 (“the Previous Case”), the respondent was found to have registered and used the domain name <kaasino.com> in bad faith. The website at that domain name was very similar to the website at the disputed domain name, featuring the same branding and logo style, a substantially similar black-and-gold colour scheme, and an almost identical casino-platform layout. 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 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 Panel finds the mark is recognisable 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. In particular, the disputed domain name consists of a misspelling of the trade mark in that it substitutes “n” for “a”. Such variations are considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes page 3 of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognisable aspects of the relevant mark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. 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 services. Such use of the disputed domain name is not bona fide. Furthermore, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Complainant has provided evidence that the Dutch Gambling Authority fined the owner of <kaasino.com> for unlicensed gambling activities in the Netherlands and that the disputed domain name has been used for a very similar website to the one at “www.kaasino.com”, indicating that (a) both domain names were likely registered by the same controller and (b) the website associated with the disputed domain name targeted Dutch consumers and offered gambling-related services in circumstances that the Complainant contends are unlawful under Dutch law. There is no evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy are relevant in the circumstances of this case. 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 trademark for the purpose of the supply of competing services in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. page 4 The Panel notes that the Complainant has submitted evidence suggesting a connection between the present Respondent and the respondent in the Previous Case, including similarities between the websites. While the term “kaasino” could be seen as a play on “casino”, the panel in the Previous Case decided that the domain name <kaasino.com> set out to target the Complainant’s KANSINO mark, based in particular on the fact that it had been used to target the Netherlands, where the Complainant also operates. Here, on balance, the Panel has come to the same conclusion regarding the disputed domain name, namely that it is an intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s mark, as the Respondent has not appeared in this proceeding to dispute that it was also the controller of the domain name <kaasino.com>, or that the similar website at “www.kaasino.com” was found to have breached Dutch gambling laws, or that the disputed domain name has likewise been used illegally, or to otherwise attempt to explain or defend its behaviour in registering and using the disputed domain name. 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 <kaasino.bet> 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.