Platincasino.win + 6 more domains

The timeline behind platincasino.win

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 Lativista B.V. v. Nathaniela Kwidama / Latiform B.V. / Eleanor Mary Clarke / Olga Ovsienko / Henrik Petersen / Artem Hryva / Shaimil GASANTAEV Claim Number: FA2601002202076 PARTIES Complainant is Lativista B.V. ("Complainant"), represented by Kamal Tserakhau of REVERA Polska sp. z o.o., Poland. Respondents are Nathaniela Kwidama / Latiform B.V. / Eleanor Mary Clarke / Olga Ovsienko / Henrik Petersen / Artem Hryva / Shaimil GASANTAEV ("Respondents"), Multiple Locations. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <platincasino.win>, <platin-casinos.com>, <platincasino-es.com>, <casinoplatin.net>, <platincasino90.com>, <platincasino.best> and <platin-casino-es.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, NETIM SAS, NameCheap, Inc., Dynadot Inc, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc and Devexpanse Ltd. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 28, 2026. Forum received payment on January 28, 2026. On January 28 and 29, 2026, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, NETIM SAS, NameCheap, Inc., Dynadot Inc, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc and Devexpanse Ltd confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <platincasino.win>, <platin-casinos.com>, <platincasino-es.com>, <casinoplatin.net>, <platincasino90.com>, <platincasino.best> and <platin-casino-es.com> domain names are registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, NETIM SAS, NameCheap, Inc., Dynadot Inc, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc and Devexpanse Ltd and that Respondents are the current registrants of the names. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, NETIM SAS, NameCheap, Inc., Dynadot Inc, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc and Devexpanse Ltd have verified that Respondents are bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, NETIM SAS, NameCheap, Inc., Dynadot Inc, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc and Devexpanse Ltd registration agreements and have 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 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 2026 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@platincasino.win, postmaster@platin-casinos.com, postmaster@platincasino-es.com, postmaster@casinoplatin.net, postmaster@platincasino90.com, postmaster@platincasino.best, postmaster@platin-casino-es.com. Also on February 3, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondents of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondents via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 4, 2026. On February 4, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 Respondents through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondents to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUES: One of the named Respondents consents to the transfer of the domain name registered in her name, while Complainant asserts that the proceeding against all the domain names should be consolidated. A similar situation was addressed in Wilson's Gun Shop dba Wilson Combat v. Hieu Nguyen / Dane Schemel / Southern Trapper, FA 2044813 (Forum July 7, 2023). CONSENT TO TRANSFER The Response was filed by Eleanor Mary Clarke, in whose name the <platin-casinos.com> domain name is registered. She consented to the transfer of the <platin-casinos.com> domain name to Complainant. Under these circumstances the Panel considers it appropriate to order the transfer of the <platin-casinos.com> domain name without embarking on the traditional Policy analysis. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial [sic] to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names."). MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Paragraph 3(c) of 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". Paragraph 1(d) of Forum's Supplemental Rules defines "The Holder of a domain name Registration" as "the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement" and sub-paragraph 1(d)(i) provides that a Complainant wishing to make an argument for a single Respondent having multiple aliases must comply with Supplemental Rules 4(c) and 17(a)(i). Complainant has shown that the <platincasino.win>, <platin-casinos.com>, <platincasino-es.com>, <casinoplatin.net>, <platincasino.best> and <platin-casino-es.com> domain names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. All except the <platincasino-es.com> domain name use the Cloudflare nameserver. All resolve to websites promoting casino services of the kind provided by Complainant and all display Complainant's PLATIN P CASINO trademark, except the "www.casinoplatin.net" website, which has the look and feel of Complainant's website. The <platincasino90.com> domain name was registered in the name of Nathaniela Kwidama / Latiform B.V. on January 4, 2024, more than a year before any of the other domain names, with a different Registrar from any of the other domain names and with a different nameserver. Unlike all the other domain names, it resolves to a parked website with pay-per-click links. The website does not display Complainant's mark. Under these circumstances the Panel is not satisfied that the <platincasino90.com> domain name is effectively controlled by the same person or entity as any of the other domain names. Accordingly, the Complaint in relation to the <platincasino90.com> domain name should be dismissed without prejudice. Since Eleanor Mary Clarke has consented to transfer of the <platin-casinos.com> domain name, henceforth this decision refers to Olga Ovsienko / Henrik Petersen / Artem Hryva / Shaimil GASANTAEV as "Respondent". PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant In 2012 Complainant released its online casino platform under the brand name "Platin P Casino", operating at the "www.platincasino.com" website, which provides players with a wide diversity of online entertainment experience, including numerous slot games from world top providers and live casino games. Complainant owns the International registered trademark PLATIN P CASINO. All the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's PLATIN P CASINO mark. Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names in question. Respondents registered the domain names with the only purpose to copy Complainant's domain name and website, making users searching for that website find one of the domain names. The websites to which the domain names resolve are either complete copies of Complainant's website or closely similar to it. Users are being confused by Respondents' domain names and websites, especially in view of the trademark depicted on these websites, which falsely suggests that they reached Complainant's website. Respondents provide no casino services at all, contrary to the content of their websites. All Respondents' websites feature links to a number of other online casino sites, none of which appear to relate to Complainant, but on the contrary are owned by Complainant's competitors and provide similar online gambling and betting services. Such diversion is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondents could not possibly contend that they is commonly known by or identified with any of the domain names. Respondents registered and are using the domain names in bad faith. Respondents had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark and associated website prior to registration of the disputed domain names. Since Respondents have no connection to the trademark, there can be no dispute, given the fame of the mark, that the Respondents are intentionally using it in bad faith to generate traffic to the websites of Complainant's competitors most likely receiving remuneration for such unlawful and unfair conduct. B. Respondent As noted, Eleanor Mary Clarke consents to the transfer of the <platin-casinos.com> domain name. FINDINGS As to the <platincasino.win>, <platincasino-es.com>, <casinoplatin.net>, <platincasino.best> and <platin-casino-es.com> domain names, Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. 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 in relation to the <platincasino.win>, <platincasino-es.com>, <casinoplatin.net>, <platincasino.best> and <platin-casino-es.com> domain names, 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 Complainant has shown that it has rights in the figurative mark PLATIN P CASINO, namely International Registration No. 1481115, registered on March 14, 2019 for "entertainment * sporting and cultural activities * gambling", in International Class 41. 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 3.0, ¶ 1.7. The Panel finds Respondent's <platincasino.win>, <platincasino-es.com>, <casinoplatin.net>, <platincasino.best> and <platin-casino-es.com> domain names to be confusingly similar to Complainant's PLATIN P CASINO mark, only differing by the omission of the "P" element, the addition of one or more hyphens and the geographic abbreviation for Spain "es", and in one case the reversal of the words "platin" and "casino". These differences are insufficient to distinguish the domain names from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".win", ".com", ".net" and ".best" generic top-level domains ("gTLDs") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000). Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <platincasino.win>, <platincasino-es.com>, <casinoplatin.net>, <platincasino.best> and <platin-casino-es.com> domain names were registered between April 3, 2024 and September 22, 2025, more than five years after the registration of Complainant's PLATIN P CASINO mark. They all resolve to websites offering gambling services. All except <casinoplatin.net> prominently display Complainant's figurative PLATIN P CASINO mark and images copied from Complainant's website. The <casinoplatin.net> website has the look and feel of Complainant's website. These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <platincasino.win>, <platincasino-es.com>, <casinoplatin.net>, <platincasino.best> and <platin-casino-es.com> domain names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in those domain names. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <platincasino.win>, <platincasino-es.com>, <casinoplatin.net>, <platincasino.best> and <platin-casino-es.com> domain names. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including: (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant, its PLATIN P CASINO mark and its "www.platincasino.com" website when Respondent registered the <platincasino.win>, <platincasino-es.com>, <casinoplatin.net>, <platincasino.best> and <platin-casino-es.com> domain names and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's websites and of the services promoted on those websites. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established this element. DECISION It is Ordered that Respondent Nathaniela Kwidama / Latiform B.V. and the associated domain name <platincasino90.com> are dismissed from this arbitration proceeding without prejudice. Eleanor Mary Clarke having consented to the transfer of the <platin-casinos.com> domain name to Complainant, it is Ordered that the <platin-casinos.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Eleanor Mary Clarke to Complainant. Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy in relation to the <platincasino.win>, <platincasino-es.com>, <casinoplatin.net>, <platincasino.best> and <platin-casino-es.com> domain names, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <platincasino.win>, <platincasino-es.com>, <casinoplatin.net>, <platincasino.best> and <platin-casino-es.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: February 8, 2026 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.