Virginbetq.com

The timeline behind virginbetq.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. pingping yang Case No. D2026-2523 1. The Parties The Complainant is Virgin Enterprises Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Venner Shipley LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondent is pingping yang, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <virginbetq.com> is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 10, 2026. On June 11, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 12, 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 June 13, 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 June 15, 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 June 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 7, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 14, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on July 17, 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 Virgin Enterprises Ltd, a UK-based group involved in many different sectors such as entertainment, retail, telecommunications, media or travel. Among its different businesses, the Complainant is active in the field of online sports betting, in particular through an app known as VIRGIN BET. Information about the Virgin Bet website is available at “www.virginbet.com”. The Complainant owns trademark rights in the name VIRGIN BET: United Kingdom Trademark Reg. No. UK00003269158 of February 2, 2018 European Union Trade mark Reg. No. 005189923 of May 2, 2007 both designating gambling and betting services. The Complainant has documented the reputation of the mark VIRGIN BET. The disputed domain name <virginbetq.com> was registered on December 1, 2025. It is directed to a web site dedicated to gambling services, where the Complainant’s mark VIRGIN BET is used on numerous occasions (home page, terms and conditions page, privacy policy page, Copyright notice, etc.), and where Internet users are encouraged to install a “Virgin Bet APK” app. 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 that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that: page 3 (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph (a)(iii)). 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. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel finds the addition of the letter “q” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. 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 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 particularly by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not make any bona fide or legitimate non-commercial fair use of the disputed domain name. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed phishing, impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. page 4 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent: - has registered a domain name that is almost identical to the Complainant’s mark (only one final letter is added), - has directed the said disputed domain name to a web site where a trademark identical to the Complainant’s (and not the exact brand that composes the domain name) is used on numerous locations: home page, Terms and Conditions page, Privacy Policy page, Copyright notice, etc., - has used the disputed domain name in relation with gambling and betting services that are in direct competition with the Complainant’s activities conducted under its trademark, and where Internet users are encouraged to download an APK app. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent web site is fictitious, for it does not feature the usual characteristics and contents of a genuinely active web site, and that the APK apps that the Respondent proposes are usually fraudulent platforms used for phishing purposes. The Complainant further suspects that the Respondent receives a fee per download from its web site. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed phishing, and passing off 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 name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its web site, using a domain name that is almost identical to the Complainant’s mark, impersonating the latter by using his trademark on the pages on the contested website and thus creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its registered mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name and the web site the same directs to. 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 <virginbetq.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /William Lobelson/ William Lobelson Sole Panelist Date: July 27, 2026

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