Albertacasinotime.com

The timeline behind albertacasinotime.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 CasinoTime Inc. v. Roman Grebelnyk, NovaEdge Solutions Case No. D2026-2807 1. The Parties The Complainant is CasinoTime Inc., Canada, internally represented. The Respondent is Roman Grebelnyk, NovaEdge Solutions, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <albertacasinotime.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 26, 2026. On June 29, 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 (Unknown Registrant / Privacy-Protected Registrant) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 30, 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 30, 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 July 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 22, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on July 22, 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 corporation incorporated on October 14, 2021, under the laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada and is also registered as an extra-provincial corporation in Alberta, Canada as of March 5, 2026. The Complainant uses the business name “Casino Time” to provide regulated online casino, bingo, player-account, and related iGaming services in Canada. The Complainant holds trademark rights for or including CASINO TIME, such as the following: - the Canadian Trademark registration number TMA1320445 for CASINO TIME (figurative), filed on February 7, 2022, registered on June 6, 2025, covering services in International Class 41; and - the Canadian Trademark registration number TMA1320446 for C CASINO TIME (figurative), filed on February 7, 2022, registered on June 6, 2025, covering services in International Class 41. The Complainant holds domain names incorporating its CASINO TIME mark, such as <casinotime.ca> (the official main website) registered on August 10, 2021, <casinotime.com>, and <ontario.casinotime.ca>. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on May 13, 2026, and, at the time of filing the Complaint, it was used in relation to a website displaying the Complainant’s visual/design trademark, logo, brand presentation, promoting iGaming services, similar to the Complainant’s regulated services, and lacking any disclaimer or note to inform users about the lack of relationship between the website holder and the Complainant. 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 the following: - it holds rights in CASINO TIME through trademark registrations, common-law and goodwill-based rights arising from the use of the CasinoTime name, CasinoTime visual identity, official domain names including <casinotime.ca>, advertising, affiliate materials, media references, regulatory/public materials, and historical use in connection with regulated iGaming services; - the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CASINO TIME trademark, as it fully incorporates it with the addition of the term “alberta”, which is a geographic term referring to the Canadian province and market that the Complainant is preparing to enter very shortly. Therefore, such addition does not avoid the confusing similarity, instead it reinforces the false impression that the Disputed Domain Name is an Alberta- specific extension of the Complainant’s official CasinoTime online presence; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name mainly because: (i) the Complainant has not licensed, authorized, permitted, or otherwise approved the Respondent’s use of its CASINO TIME name or mark, the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name; (ii) the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, to the contrary, the Disputed Domain Name was used to resolve to a website that impersonates the Complainant page 3 by using its brand name, trademark, logo, presentation, and is promoting similar iGaming services - such use further presents a risk of collecting player account information, registration details, login credentials, or others sensitive personal information under false pretenses; - the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith mainly because: (i) the Complainant’s rights in the CASINO TIME name, marks, domain names predate the date of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name; (ii) the Disputed Domain Name uses and markets the same brand name “Casino Time”, promotes identical or similar iGaming services, and uses the Complainant’s figurative mark, logo, and brand presentation -this shows that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and selected the Disputed Domain Name and website content to take advantage of the goodwill associated with the CASINO TIME mark; (iii) by using the Disputed Domain Name the Respondent has intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users searching the Complainant to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves; (iv) the Respondent’s conduct is particularly harmful because the Disputed Domain Name is highly similar to the Complainant’s intended Alberta-facing domain name since the Complainant is preparing to enter the Alberta iGaming market on or about July 2026. The Disputed Domain Name is likely to misled Alberta players, divert prospective players, erode public trust in the Complainant’s brand and exposes users to the risk that their account information, registration information, credentials, or other personal information will be collected by an unauthorised party; and (v) the Respondent’s contact details, as disclosed by the Registrar, appears facially inconsistent and unreliable, including the use of inaccurate information for the address (such as the use of “Springield” with postal code 62704, “USA” as a state/province, and “Virginia Islands (USA)” as the country), as well as the disclosed telephone number appears invalid or non-functional. These irregularities reinforce the inference that the Respondent attempted to obscure its identity in connection with the abusive registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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. page 4 While the addition of other term, here, “alberta”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term 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 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 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. According to the evidence, the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a website promoting services similar to those of the Complainant, displaying the Complainant’s name, trademark, logo and brand presentation, without providing any disclaimer regarding the relationship (in fact the lack thereof) between the Respondent and the Complainant. UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (such as claimed impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel further notes that the Disputed Domain Name, reproducing the Complainant’s mark CASINO TIME with an additional geographic term closely related to the Complainant’s business (i.e. “Alberta”, being a term referring to a Canadian province and market that the Complainant is preparing to enter, and is part of the Complainant’s domain name to be launched around the date of the present procedure), carry a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. Therefore, such composition cannot constitute fair use. 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 Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith, with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark particularly because the Complainant’s rights, registered trademarks and domain names, predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name with several years. The addition of the element “Alberta”, being a geographic term and the name of the Canadian province and market that the Complainant is preparing to extend its activities, is another sign of bad faith registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Further, the use of the Disputed Domain Name corroborates this judgement. page 5 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. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location” is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. Creating a website displaying the Complainant’s name, trademark, logo, images and providing similar services to those offered by the Complainant under its CASINO TIME trademark, without providing any disclaimer, in this Panel’s view, the Respondent has intended to attract Internet users accessing the website who may be confused and believe that the website is held, controlled by, or somehow affiliated or related to the Complainant, for its commercial gain. The Respondent chose not to participate in these proceedings and to put forward any rights or legitimate rights, registered the Disputed Domain Name under a privacy shield and provided inaccurate/incomplete postal address at the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Along with the other circumstances in this case, this may be a further sign of bad faith. 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, <albertacasinotime.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. /Marilena Comanescu/ Marilena Comanescu Sole Panelist Date: July 22, 2026

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