Itvwin-bingo.net + 5 more domains

The timeline behind itvwin-bingo.net

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 ITV Rights Limited, ITV Consumer Limited, ITV Network Limited, and ITV Broadcasting Limited v. Vladyslava Chorna Case No. D2026-2544 1. The Parties The Complainants are ITV Rights Limited, ITV Consumer Limited, ITV Network Limited, and ITV Broadcasting Limited, all United Kingdom, internally represented. The Respondent is Vladyslava Chorna, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names <itvwin-bingo.net> and <itvwincasino.com> are registered with Devexpanse Ltd d/b/a Regery.com. The disputed domain names <itvwin-bingo.org>, <itvwinbingo.org>, <itvwincasino.org>, and <itvwin.org> are registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu (together the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 11, 2026. On June 11, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 12, 2026, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (The RDAP server redacted the value / REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on June 16, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on June 17, 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 24, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 14, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 16, 2026. The Center appointed Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira as the sole panelist in this matter on July 23, 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 Each of the Complainants is a wholly owned subsidiary of ITV Plc. The ITV Group is a producer, streamer, and broadcaster. ITV plc. is one of the largest commercial linear television broadcasters in the United Kingdom, operates six television channels, and has used the ITV mark in the United Kingdom since 2006. ITV Rights Limited is the rights-holding entity for ITV Plc’s United Kingdom broadcasting and online businesses. The Complainants own several trademark registrations, including: - United Kingdom trademark registration no. UK00906370415 for ITV, registered on September 15, 2008, in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, 42, and 45; - United Kingdom trademark registration no. UK00002464318 for ITV BINGO, registered on March 28, 2008, in class 41; - United Kingdom trademark registration no. UK00004280776 for ITV WIN, registered on January 9, 2026, applied for on October 20, 2025, in classes 9, 35, and 41; and - United Kingdom trademark registration no. UK00002464330 for ITV CASINO registered on March 28, 2008, in class 41. The ITV and ITV-formative marks have been used in connection with competitions and gaming-related services at “www.itv.com/win” since at least March 21, 2024. ITV Consumer Limited also owns a portfolio of ITV-formative domain names, including <itvwin.com>, <itvwinbingo.com>, and <itvwinbingo.co.uk>. The disputed domain names were all registered on December 18, 2025. Screenshots taken in February and March 2026 show that each disputed domain name resolved to an English-language website promoting gambling-related services. The websites displayed the ITV WIN mark or a closely similar logo and promoted bingo, slots, bonuses, registration, deposits, or play. Several described the services as official or connected with the Complainants, and/or identified the Complainant’s former gambling partner previously operating its website at “www.itvwin.com”. The website at the disputed domain name <itvwin.org> was headed “ITV Win Gaming Platform”, discussed the Complainant’s gaming offering and contained links to “Play and Win.” 5. 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 proceedings should continue. page 3 Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Panel is of the view that they should. The Center also sent the Notification of Complaint by email to the Respondent at its email address as registered with the Registrar. There is no evidence that the case notification email to that email address was not successfully delivered. The Panel also notes that all the websites hosted at the disputed domain names are in the English language, which may support an inference that the Respondent is not located in Ukraine. 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 names 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 proceedings take place with due expedition the Panel will proceed to a Decision accordingly. 6. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. Notably, the Complainants contend that: 1. they own an extensive portfolio of registered ITV, ITV WIN, ITV BINGO, and ITV CASINO trademarks and have used the ITV and ITV WIN marks in connection with competitions, gaming, and gambling- related services; 2. the disputed domain names incorporate the ITV and ITV WIN marks, and the addition of the terms “bingo” or “casino”, with or without a hyphen, does not distinguish them from the Complainants’ marks; 3. the websites associated with the disputed domain names reproduced the ITV WIN mark and elements of the Complainants’ online presentation and referred to ITV, its television programmes, the Complainants’ former partner, and/or the corresponding gambling licence in order to appear official or affiliated with the Complainants; 4. there is no relationship between the Parties, and the Respondent has never been authorized to use the Complainants’ marks or to register the disputed domain names; 5. the Complainants had used the ITV mark online before the disputed domain names were registered, <itvwin.com> was listed as active on the United Kingdom Gambling Commission portal from December 15, 2025, and the Complainants’ forthcoming gaming venture received press coverage on December 17, 2025, one day before the disputed domain names were registered; 6. the Respondent used the disputed domain names and the corresponding websites to misrepresent itself as the Complainants through the use of the ITV and ITV WIN marks and references to ITV’s broadcasting activities and gaming partner and therefore has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; 7. the timing and coordinated registration of the six disputed domain names, together with the content of the associated websites, show that the Respondent knew of and specifically targeted the Complainants and their ITV and ITV WIN marks; and 8. the Respondent registered and used, and in some cases continues to use, the disputed domain names to trade on the reputation of the ITV and ITV WIN marks and to mislead Internet users into believing that the corresponding websites were offered by, or connected with, the Complainants. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. page 4 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 Complainants’ trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainants have shown rights in respect of the ITV and ITV-formative trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. Each disputed domain name incorporates the ITV mark in its entirety, and most also incorporate the Complainant’s ITV BINGO and ITV CASINO marks, in two instances separated by a hyphen. The marks remain clearly recognizable in each disputed domain name. The addition of the term “win” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The applicable generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) “.com”, “.net”, and “.org” are viewed as standard registration requirements and are disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. 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 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 Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainants’ 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. The Complainants have not authorized the Respondent to use their marks or to register the disputed domain names, and nothing in the record indicates that the Respondent has been commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. The websites associated with the disputed domain names invited users to register, deposit funds, claim bonuses, or play gambling games while prominently displaying the Complainants’ marks and, in most cases, repeatedly suggesting that the services were official or connected with the Complainants. Such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The isolated statement in the footer of the websites associated with <itvwinbingo.org>, <itvwincasino.com>, and <itvwin.org> that it was an independent website does not alter this conclusion: elsewhere, the websites stated that they were was “part of the official ITV family” or “Official ITV Slots and Bingo Platform in the UK” page 5 and displayed the ITV WIN logo. Similarly, as regards the website at the domain name <itvwin.org>, discussing the Complainants’ services and displaying its ITV trademark while offering links to “Play and Win” does not amount to a bona fide offering. 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. The Complainants’ ITV, ITV CASINO and ITV BINGO trademark registrations long predate the registration of the disputed domain names. The Complainants had also used the ITV WIN mark online before the disputed domain names were registered. The United Kingdom Gambling Commission portal listed the domain name <itvwin.com> as active from December 15, 2025, and the Complainants’ forthcoming gaming venture received press coverage on December 17, 2025. The Respondent registered all six disputed domain names on December 18, 2025. Their composition, registration on the same day immediately following the press coverage, and subsequent use leave no doubt that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainants and their marks. The associated websites offered or promoted gambling-related services, invited registration, deposits, bonus claims, or play, and presented themselves as official or affiliated with the Complainants through the prominent use of the Complainants’ marks and references to ITV, the Complainants’ then gaming partner, and the corresponding gambling licence, and some language explicitly suggesting that the websites were operated by the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ marks as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. This constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The presence of a disclaimer in the footer of some of the websites does not cure the Respondent’s bad faith in the overall circumstances of this case. 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 names <itvwin-bingo.net>, <itvwin-bingo.org>, <itvwinbingo.org>, <itvwincasino.com>, <itvwincasino.org>, and <itvwin.org> be transferred to the Complainants. /Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira/ Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira Sole Panelist Date: August 3, 2026

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