Casumocasinonorge.com

The timeline behind casumocasinonorge.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 C Digital Technologies Limited v. Mariangela Albanese Case No. D2026-2619 1. The Parties The Complainant is C Digital Technologies Limited, Malta, represented by Abion AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Mariangela Albanese, Italy. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <casumocasinonorge.com> 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 June 16, 2026. On June 17, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 18, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 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 June 23, 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 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. page 2 The Center appointed Rodrigo Velasco Santelices as the sole panelist in this matter on July 20, 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 a company incorporated in Malta and operating in the online gaming and betting sector, offering online casino and sports betting services under a portfolio of brands, including “Casumo”. The Complainant launched the Casumo brand in Sweden in 2012. Since its launch, Casumo has grown across several regulated markets. The Complainant’s Casumo offer includes online casino, live casino, and sportsbook services, as well as mobile applications available for iOS and Android. Through these platforms, users may access a broad range of gaming and betting services, including slot games, table games, live dealer games, and sports betting services. The Complainant is licensed by several recognized gambling authorities, including the Malta Gaming Authority, the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner, the United Kingdom Gambling Commission, and the Spanish Dirección General de Ordenación del Juego. The Complainant also operates through a global team, with its headquarters in Malta and further hubs in several jurisdictions. Casumo brand also has a presence in Canada. The Complainant officially launched its iGaming website and app for players in Ontario, allowing residents of the province to access its online casino offering. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for CASUMO (both word and figurative mark), such as, but not limited to, the following: - European Union Trade Mark registration No. 019083132 , registered on January 10, 2025; - European Union Trade Mark registration No. 017650391 CASUMO, registered on April 16, 2018; - European Union Trade Mark registration No 010863066 CASUMO, registered on October 3, 2012; - United Kingdom trademark registration No. UK00915393085 CASUMO, registered on August 12, 2016; and - Canadian trademark registration No. TMA1085780 CASUMO, registered on October 21, 2020. The Complainant also owns numerous domain names containing the trademark CASUMO, among them: <casumo.com> (registered on March 10, 2011), <casumogame.com> (registered on September 27, 2017), <casumo-casino.com> (registered on April 11, 2012), and <casinocasumo.com> (registered on September 13, 2017). The main corporate website of the Complainant is at “www.casumo.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on November 13, 2025, and resolves to a purported online gaming and gambling website using the Complainant’s CASUMO stylized trademark . 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. page 3 Notably, the Complainant contends that it is the owner of the registered trademark CASUMO, so it cannot be questioned that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark since the disputed domain name reproduces the CASUMO trademark in its entirety. Moreover, the structure of the disputed domain name – incorporating the Complainant’s trademark CASUMO along with the relevant descriptive terms “casino” and “norge” (the Norwegian word for Norway) – may falsely lead Internet users to believe that it is directly connected to the Complainant, which is not the case. Indeed, the terms “casino” and “norge” refer to the Complainant’s business activities, as the Complainant is an international provider of online casino games, among other things. The website associated with the disputed domain name is active and constitutes a case of impersonation, as it prominently displays the Complainant’s stylized trademark and presents itself in a manner suggesting an official connection with the Complainant. Indeed, by reading the disputed domain name, Internet users may believe that it is directly connected to or authorized by the Complainant and that the disputed domain name will resolve to the Complainant’s official website, which is not the case. The Complainant further states that the Respondent clearly had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name in order to exploit and profit from its trademark rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 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 to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here, “casino” and “norge”, 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 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 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 page 4 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. First, the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to register a domain name composed of the mark CASUMO. Second, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to it. Further, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant as it effectively impersonates or suggests some connection to the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. 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 Complainant’s trademark CASUMO was registered many years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant’s trademark CASUMO is well known internationally in the relevant industry. Therefore, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the choice of the disputed domain name, incorporating the CASUMO trademark together with a term closely related to the Complainant (i.e., “casino”), along with a geographical term (i.e., “norge”), cannot be a simple coincidence. 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. The Respondent uses the Complainant’s trademark in the favicon, and throughout the body of the website, in connection with casino games and online slot services. The website further invites users to “Log in” and “Sign up” through buttons displayed at the top of the page, thereby creating the impression that the website is operated by, affiliated with, or authorized by the Complainant. The Panel finds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Panel also notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the CASUMO trademark, the Complainant’s casino activities worldwide, and the composition of the disputed domain name. 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 Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <casumocasinonorge.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Rodrigo Velasco Santelices/ Rodrigo Velasco Santelices Sole Panelist Date: August 3, 2026

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