7bit-casino.online + 10 more domains

The timeline behind 7bit-casino.online

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Razor Trade Corporation v. Igor Shanska / Oleg Petrov / Aiden Bulcock / black Burn / Travis Trent / Ahrens Bennet / you ke / Ekaterina Gerasimova / Evgeniya Tolstova / Solomia Bagrij / Adrian Borg / Aphex Media / Dmytro Onyshchuk / MNB Media Claim Number: FA2502002139065 PARTIES Complainant is Razor Trade Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Aliaksandr Struzhko of REVERA Polska sp. z o.o., Poland. Respondent is Igor Shanska / Oleg Petrov / Aiden Bulcock / black Burn / Travis Trent / Ahrens Bennet / you ke / Ekaterina Gerasimova / Evgeniya Tolstova / Solomia Bagrij / Adrian Borg / Aphex Media / Dmytro Onyshchuk / MNB Media ("Respondent"), France. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names listed in the Complaint are <7bit-casino.online>, <7bitcasino.ink>, <the7bit.top>, <7bit.cc>, <7bitcasinoonline.com>, <7bitcasin0.com>, <7bit-casinoca.com>, <7bitcasinoca.top>, <7bitcasinoreview.com>, <7bitcasino-br.com>, and <7bitcasiino.com>, registered with Realtime Register B.V.; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu; Spaceship, Inc.; Porkbun Llc; Namecheap, Inc.; Gname.Com Pte. Ltd.; Namesilo, Llc; Registrar of Domain Names Reg.Ru Llc; and Url Solutions, Inc. For the reasons given below, the Panel finds that the only relevant domain names for this case are <7bit-casino.online>, <7bitcasin0.com>, and <7bit-casinoca.com>. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 7, 2025; Forum received payment on February 7, 2025. On Feb 07, 2025; Feb 09, 2025; Feb 10, 2025; and Feb 17, 2025, Realtime Register B.V.; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu; Spaceship, Inc.; Porkbun Llc; Namecheap, Inc.; Gname.Com Pte. Ltd.; Namesilo, Llc; Registrar of Domain Names Reg.Ru Llc; and Url Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <7bit-casino.online>, <7bitcasino.ink>, <the7bit.top>, <7bit.cc>, <7bitcasinoonline.com>, <7bitcasin0.com>, <7bit-casinoca.com>, <7bitcasinoca.top>, <7bitcasinoreview.com>, <7bitcasino-br.com>, and <7bitcasiino.com> domain names are registered with Realtime Register B.V.; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu; Spaceship, Inc.; Porkbun Llc; Namecheap, Inc.; Gname.Com Pte. Ltd.; Namesilo, Llc; Registrar of Domain Names Reg.Ru Llc; and Url Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Realtime Register B.V.; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu; Spaceship, Inc.; Porkbun Llc; Namecheap, Inc.; Gname.Com Pte. Ltd.; Namesilo, Llc; Registrar of Domain Names Reg.Ru Llc; and Url Solutions, Inc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the Realtime Register B.V.; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu; Spaceship, Inc.; Porkbun Llc; Namecheap, Inc.; Gname.Com Pte. Ltd.; Namesilo, Llc; Registrar of Domain Names Reg.Ru Llc; and Url Solutions, Inc. registration agreements and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Russian and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@7bit-casino.online, postmaster@7bitcasino.ink, postmaster@the7bit.top, postmaster@7bit.cc, postmaster@7bitcasinoonline.com, postmaster@7bitcasin0.com, postmaster@7bit-casinoca.com, postmaster@7bitcasinoca.top, postmaster@7bitcasinoreview.com, postmaster@7bitcasino-br.com, and postmaster@7bitcasiino.com. Also on February 18, 2025, the Russian and English Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default in Russian and English. On March 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. In support of this allegation it states: a) each and every disputed domain name includes the Complainant's "7Bit" or "7BitCasino" trademarks in their entirety; b) each and every disputed domain name is being used solely to host phishing websites that mimic Complainant's website and to redirect users to competing websites; c) all the domain names were registered using a privacy service, however the WHOIS information for some of the disputed domain names is not reliable; d) the IP addresses used for the registration of the disputed domain names coincide on many occasions; e) some of the fake identities used here to register the disputed domain names were also used for domain names that were transferred in previous UDRP proceedings; f) some of the disputed domain names were cancelled as soon as the registrants received notice of the UDRP proceedings; g) two of the resolving websites are targeted at Portuguese-language audiences; h) some of the disputed domain names are associated with the same name servers; i) two of the disputed domain names were registered within two days; and j) some of the disputed domain names were registered with the same registrar. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." The Panel finds that allegations (a) and (c)-(j) above do not necessarily indicate that the domain names are under common control. The Panel does not agree with allegation (b): the evidence presented by Complainant indicates only that three of the resolving websites are similar and mimic Complainant's website. Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has not presented sufficient evidence to find that all the disputed domain names were registered by the same person or entity. Under Forum's Supplemental Rule 4(c), the Panel must determine which domain names are commonly owned and elect which Respondent to proceed against, as a UDRP decision can proceed against only one Respondent. The Panel is then required to dismiss the Complaint in relation to the domain names not commonly owned by the chosen Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel will rule only on the <7bit-casino.online>, <7bitcasin0.com>, and <7bit-casinoca.com> domain names, and it will dismiss, without prejudice, the complaint regarding the domain names <7bitcasino.ink>, <the7bit.top>, <7bit.cc>, <7bitcasinoonline.com>, <7bitcasinoca.top>, <7bitcasinoreview.com>, <7bitcasino-br.com>, and <7bitcasiino.com>. See Brian Renner v. Contactprivacy.com, FA 1335211 (Forum Aug. 26, 2010); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. M M / shanwang chen / feifei lin / HUA ZHANG / L H / Eddie Nash / Heather Brooker, FA 1973471 (Forum Dec. 17, 2021). PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING Prior to discussing the three elements of the Policy, the Panel must decide on the language of the proceedings for the <7bit-casino.online> domain name. The Registration Agreement for that domain name is written in Russian, thereby making the language of the proceedings Russian. Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel has the authority to determine a different language for the proceedings, having regard to the circumstances of the case. It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Pursuant to Rule 10(b), Respondent must be given a fair opportunity to present its case. Pursuant to Rule 10(c), the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, "It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case."). In the present case, Respondent has received the Notice of Complainant and Commencement Notification in Russian and has chosen not to respond to the Complaint; the resolving website is in English. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Panel determines that fairness and justice to both parties, and due expedition, are best satisfied by conducting the remainder of the proceedings in English. See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Yoshihiro Nakazawa, FA 1736477 (Forum July 21, 2017); see also UBS AG v. ratzel laura, FA 1735687 (Forum July 14, 2017). PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that, in October 2014, it, together with Dama N.V., released its online casino platform under the "7BITCASINO" brand operating on the domain name <7bitcasino.com>. Dama is incorporated under the laws of Curacao and owns the necessary international Curacao E-gaming license issued by Curaçao Gaming Control Board. Therefore, Complainant's operations of the 7BitCasino casino under Dama's Curaçao license is compliant with all applicable regulatory requirements. Complainant's website provides players from the EU with a wide diversity of online entertainment experience, including numerous slot games from world top providers and live casino games. Complainant's casino manages its own loyalty and jackpot programs, and marketing putting significant efforts in promoting the 7BITCASINO brand, which is now associated by the public with an enjoyable online gaming experience. In mid-2023, following the increased popularity of the 7BITCASINO brand among the EU players, Complainant decided to protect its brand name and logo by registering it as an EU trademark. After receiving a huge attention in the industry, in mid-2023 to 2024 Complainant observed a great number of sites infringing on its trademark rights, exploiting its hard-won trust and goodwill. An unknown party, i.e. Respondent, has registered confusingly similar domain names to create clear-cut copies of Complainant's website. The main aim of such clones is to lure traffic from Complainant by confusing players to thinking that they reached Complainant's website. However, after users attempt to register an account with such unauthorized website, they are transferred to the website of one of the Complainant's competitors. The domain names listed in the Complainant are just some examples of numerous similar unauthorized copies of Complainant's website. According to WhoIs information, domain names were registered right after the "boom" in Complainant's 7BitCasino casino popularity, which started in March 2023, implying the actual knowledge by Respondent of Complainant's trademark application. Complainant asserts rights in the mark 7BITCASINO through its registration in the European Union on November 15, 2023, filing date August 2, 2022. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its 7BITCASINO mark because they incorporate the mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen or replacing the letter "o" with the digit "0" or adding the geographic term "CA" (which stands for Canada), together with a generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the its mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving websites mimic Complainant's legitimate website, displaying Complainant's mark and distinctive logo, and purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. The resolving websites purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual/constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the 7BITCASINO mark. Respondent engaged in typosquatting. The WHOIS information for the <7bitcasin0.com> domain name is false. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark 7BITCASINO and uses it to provide gambling services. Complainant registered the mark on November 15, 2023, filing date August 2, 2022. The <7bit-casino.online> domain name was registered on August 8, 2023. The other disputed domain names were registered in 2024 and 2025. The registrations postdate the date on which Complainant established rights in its trademark. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The resolving websites purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant; they display Complainant's mark and distinctive logo. The WHOIS information for one of the disputed domain names is false. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The relevant date for the Complainant's mark is the filing date, see Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China v. jeonggon seo, FA 1591638 (Forum Jan. 16, 2015) (finding Complainant has rights in the LENOVO mark dating back to the February 20, 2003 filing date with the USPTO as the trademark application was ultimately successful); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant's rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO "date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent's registration"). The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's 7BITCASINO mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen or replacing the letter "o" with the digit "0" or adding the geographic term "CA" (which can stand for Canada or for California), together with a generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), such changes are not sufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.' These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has not been licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrants of the at-issue domain names as "Ekaterina Gerasimova / you ke / Solomia Bagrij". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The resolving websites purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Previous Panels have found that use of a disputed domain name to offer goods or services in competition with those of a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use" where "Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names. Indeed, as already noted, the resolving websites purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Panels have held that registration and use of a disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to a competing website offering the same or similar goods or services demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website where it offered competing printer products); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving websites display Complainant's mark and distinctive logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). In addition, Complainant presents evidence showing that one of the WHOIS entries is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept. 29, 2010) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also. Finally, by replacing the letter "o" in Complainant's mark with the digit "0" in one of the disputed domain names, Respondent engages in typosquatting. A finding of typosquatting can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA 1610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) ("Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). As such, the Panel finds bad faith typosquatting under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION The Panel dismisses, without prejudice, the Complaint against the <7bitcasino.ink>, <the7bit.top>, <7bit.cc>, <7bitcasinoonline.com>, <7bitcasinoca.top>, <7bitcasinoreview.com>, <7bitcasino-br.com>, and <7bitcasiino.com> domain names. Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy for the domain names <7bit-casino.online>, <7bitcasin0.com>, and <7bit-casinoca.com>, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED for those domain names. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <7bit-casino.online>, <7bitcasin0.com>, and <7bit-casinoca.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant and that the <7bitcasino.ink>, <the7bit.top>, <7bit.cc>, <7bitcasinoonline.com>, <7bitcasinoca.top>, <7bitcasinoreview.com>, <7bitcasino-br.com>, and <7bitcasiino.com> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: March 11, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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