Betanogames.com

The timeline behind betanogames.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 Kaizen Gaming International Limited v. xieshengqi Case No. D2026-2795 1. The Parties Complainant is Kaizen Gaming International Limited, Malta, represented by Ubilibet, S.L., Spain. Respondent is xieshengqi, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <betanogames.com> Disputed Domain Nameis registered with Dominet (HK) Limited 3. Procedural History The On June 26, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 29, 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 (undisclosed) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on July 1, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 16, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 20, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 9, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the RespondentAugust 11, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Douglas M. Isenberg as the sole panelist in this matter on August 13, 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 Complainant states that it is a company belonging to the Kaizen Gaming group of companies, currently the fastest-growing operator in the online gaming products and services sectorhas expanded to 12 countries in Europe and the Americas, including Canada, Portugal, Brazil, Romania, Germany, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador, where it operates under trademarka leading global online betting and entertainment operator, offering sports betting, online casino, and live bettingin 2021 (latest information available), its platforms hosted more than 71 million transactions, exceeding 1.4 million active users. numerous trademarks under the , including the following: European Union Trademark Reg. No. 014893671 for BETANO (registered March 23, 2016) for use in connection with, inter alia, ; International Trademark Reg. No. 1832201 for BETANO (registered November 29, 2024) for use in connection with, inter alia, betting information services; and United States Trademark Reg. No. 7,532,743 for BETANO (registered October 15, 2024) for use in connection with, inter alia, . has not provided the registration titles of all the trademarks mentioned, as this information is publicly availableit would be more than happy to provide them if the Panel deems it necessary. The Disputed Domain Name was created on October 3, 2025. Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name impersonating the Complainant on the site itself as shown in a screenshot provided with the Complaint; and that the Disputed Domain Name does not display any content and is therefore being used passively, the Complaint. Complainant states that it sent a demand letter to the Registrar (a copy of which was provided with the Complaint) regarding the Disputed Domain Name on March 24, 2026, requesting that the Registrar immediately lock and suspend your service to the domain name A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. Notably, Complainant contends in relevant part that: The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the BETANO Trademark because page 3 Disputed Domain Name term, far from conferring sufficient distinctiveness on the domain name to prevent it from being associated with the trademark, only increases the likelihood of confusion a Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because Complainant ain since its registration has been through content that infringes the commercial term, a well-known proper name, or a term in general use, which we believe significantly reduces Respondent did not previously hosted an online gaming and betting website primary business alone demonstrates that the Respondent has commercial purposes for it based on Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith because -known in Disputed Domain Name good reputation and renown for profit, by creating a fictitious connection with the Complainant, imitating the -use of the Disputed Domain Name full context particularly the fact that the Respondent was given the opportunity to reach an amicable B. Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the BETANO Trademark. However, Complainant has provided no documentation to support any of While true, the appropriate practice is for parties in proceedings under the Policy to provide documentation to support their assertions in their filings conclusory statements unsupported by evidence will normally be insufficient to prove a WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.2. Failure to include appropriate documentation in filings only creates unnecessary burdens by potentially requiring panels to request such readily available documentation, which requests could delay what are supposed to be efficient proceedings. a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decisionaccessing trademark registration databasesWIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.8. Accordingly, the Panel here has indeed accessed relevant trademark databases to confirm details of the trademark registrations cited above. page 4 As to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the BETANO Trademark, the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name only (i.e., betanogames- WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.1 set forth in section 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.1 disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first el the Disputed Domain Name contains the entirety of the BETANO Trademark, and the addition of the word games The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has argued that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or allowed the Registrant or any third party to use its trademarks through the domain name <betanogames.com> or in any other way that would confer validity or legitimacy upon such usage; -known proper name, or a term in general use, which we believe significantly reduces the likelihood of that the Respondent has been commonly known by which is the alone demonstrates that the Respondent has commercial purposes for it based on making a profit at the expense of user confusion, which excludes de WIPO Overview 3.1Although 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 often impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the The Panel finds that Complainant has established its prima facie case and without any evidence from Respondent to the contrary, the Panel is satisfied that Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Whether a domain name is registered and used in bad faith for purposes of the Policy may be determined by evaluating four (non-exhaustive) factors set forth in the Policy: (i) circumstances indicating that the registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a page 5 competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for ource, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the paragraph 4(b). By previously using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a website that provided services Respondent has clearly created a likelihood of confusion pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See, e.g., The Dow Chemical Company v. dowaychemical eva_hwang@21cn.com +86.7508126859, WIPO Case No. D2008-1078 (finding bad faith where complainant Emu (Aus) Pty Ltd. and Emu Ridge Holdings Pty Ltd. v. Antonia Deinert, WIPO Case No. D2010-1390 and Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, Cantor Index Limited v. Cantor Index, WIPO Case No. D2010-0807 (finding The fact that Disputed Domain Name is no longer associated with an active website (following previous actions and, in any event, the passive holding doctrine supports a finding of bad faith here. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3 (citing Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) The Panel finds that 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 <betanogames.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Douglas M. Isenberg/ Douglas M. Isenberg Sole Panelist Date: August 15, 2026

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