Platin-casino.win + 9 more domains

The timeline behind platin-casino.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. Richard Bras / Maurice Bortey / Matteo Meola / Adrian-Catalin Gheorghe / Daryna Shkelebei / Dario Salaj / Henrik Petersen / Vjaceslavs Zinovjevs / Vitaliia Bolban Claim Number: FA2607002235010 PARTIES Complainant is Lativista B.V. ("Complainant"), Curaçao, represented by Kamal Tserakhau of REVERA Polska sp. z o.o., Poland. Respondents are Richard Bras, Netherlands; Maurice Bortey, Germany; Matteo Meola, Italy; Adrian-Catalin Gheorghe, Romania; Daryna Shkelebei, Ukraine; Dario Salaj, Croatia; Henrik Petersen, Denmark; Vjaceslavs Zinovjevs, Latvia; and Vitaliia Bolban, Ukraine ("Respondents"). REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <platin-casino.win> (Respondent Maurice Bortey, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu); <platincasino-se.com> (Respondent Vjaceslavs Zinovjevs, registered with Dynadot LLC); <platincasinoespana.com> (Respondent Daryna Shkelebei, registered with NameCheap, Inc.); <platincasinobrasil.com> (Respondent Vitaliia Bolban, registered with Dynadot LLC); <platincasinoca.com> (Respondent Dario Salaj, registered with Spaceship, Inc.); <platin-ie.com> (Respondent Adrian-Catalin Gheorghe, registered with NameCheap, Inc.); <platincasinosde.net> (Respondent Matteo Meola, registered with URL Solutions, Inc.); <platincasino.ltd> (Respondent Richard Bras, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu); <platincasino.one> (Respondent Richard Bras, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu); and <casinoplatin.org> (Respondent Henrik Petersen, registered with Dynadot LLC). 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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 27, 2026; Forum received payment on July 27, 2026. On July 28, 29, and 30, 2026, each of the registrars referenced above confirmed by email to Forum that the corresponding domain name or names are registered with that registrar, with the Respondent listed above as the current registrant; and that each registrant is bound by the registrar's registration agreement 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 August 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 24, 2026 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@platin-casino.win, postmaster@platincasino-se.com, postmaster@platincasinoespana.com, postmaster@platincasinobrasil.com, postmaster@platincasinoca.com, postmaster@platin-ie.com, postmaster@platincasinosde.net, postmaster@platincasino.ltd, postmaster@platincasino.one, and postmaster@casinoplatin.org. Also on August 4, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondents of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondents via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondents, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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[s]" 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 Respondents. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondents to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are effectively under the control of a single entity operating under multiple aliases. 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." Complainant notes numerous commonalities among the disputed domain names, including that they incorporate elements of Complainant's PLATIN P CASINO trademark, are being used to host websites that replicate Complainant's website, use identical design elements, and redirect users to competing online casino platforms. Complainant also notes duplication and inconsistencies in the domain registration information supplied by Respondents, and that three of the Respondents have appeared as respondents in prior proceedings involving similar circumstances. See Razor Trade Corp. v. Mikhail Haraldson / Eugene Gonzales / - SC Global S.L.R. / Daryna Shkelebei, FA 2226338 (Forum July 10, 2026); Lativista B.V. v. Mandi Rua / Vitaliia Bolban / Yevhen Horodenskyi / Marharyta Stekachova / YURY ZANCHENKO, FA 2224097 (Forum July 8, 2026); Razor Trade Corp. v. Bernard Fleury / Alex Brown / Daryna Shkelebei / Vladyslav Panasenko / Mikhail Haraldson / Domain Admin / Privacy Protect LLC PrivacyProtect org, FA 2214301 (Forum May 5, 2026); DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Vitaliia Bolban, FA 2213368 (Forum Apr. 25, 2026); Lativista B.V. v. Nathaniela Kwidama / Latiform B.V. / Eleanor Mary Clarke / Olga Ovsienko / Henrik Petersen / Artem Hryva / Shaimil GASANTAEV, FA 2202076 (Forum Feb. 8, 2026). Having considered Complainant's allegations and noting that none of the Respondents have come forward to dispute the allegation that they are one entity acting under multiple aliases, nor to object to the consolidation of the disputed domain names in a single proceeding, the Panel considers it appropriate to treat the disputed domain names as being under the common control of a single person or entity (hereinafter "Respondent"). PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a company incorporated in Curaçao that operates an online casino platform that launched in 2012 under the name and mark PLATIN P CASINO. Complainant owns an international trademark registration pursuant to the Madrid Protocol, designating the United States and other jurisdictions, for PLATIN P CASINO, a figurative mark composed of the words PLATIN and CASINO separated by a "P" within an image of the sun. The disputed domain names were registered between February 2025 and June 2026, in each instance with the registrant's identity being redacted from the public domain name registration record or replaced by the name of a privacy registration service. The domain names are being used for websites that replicate the design, layout, and branding of a prior version of Complainant's website, and in most instances, display a replica of Complainant's figurative mark. Upon attempting to interact with any of these websites, the user is redirected to a competing online casino service. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to its PLATIN P CASINO mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Each of the disputed domain names incorporates at least the distinctive portion of Complainant's registered PLATIN P CASINO mark, inserting hyphens or generic or geographic terms or abbreviations and appending a top-level domain. Such alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Lativista B.V. v. Mandi Rua / Vitaliia Bolban / Yevhen Horodenskyi / Marharyta Stekachova / YURY ZANCHENKO, supra (finding <platincasino-ca.com>, <platincasino-uk.com>, <platin-casino-uk.com>, <de-platincasino.com>, <platin-casino-ca.com>, <platincasino-fi.com>, <platincasino-spain.com>, <platincasinodeutschland.com>, <platin-casino-at.com> and <platin-casino-no.com> confusingly similar to PLATIN CASINO); Lativista B.V. v. Nathaniela Kwidama / Latiform B.V. / Eleanor Mary Clarke / Olga Ovsienko / Henrik Petersen / Artem Hryva / Shaimil GASANTAEV, supra (finding <platincasino.win>, <platin-casinos.com>, <platincasino-es.com>, <casinoplatin.net>, <platincasino.best> and <platin-casino-es.com> confusingly similar to PLATIN P CASINO). The Panel considers the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Each of the disputed domain names incorporates at least the distinctive portion of Complainant's registered mark without authorization and is being used for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant to promote directly competing services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Razor Trade Corp. v. Mikhail Haraldson / Eugene Gonzales / - SC Global S.L.R. / Daryna Shkelebei, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Lativista B.V. v. Mandi Rua / Vitaliia Bolban / Yevhen Horodenskyi / Marharyta Stekachova / YURY ZANCHENKO, supra (same); Razor Trade Corp. v. Bernard Fleury / Alex Brown / Daryna Shkelebei / Vladyslav Panasenko / Mikhail Haraldson / Domain Admin / Privacy Protect LLC PrivacyProtect org, supra (same); DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Vitaliia Bolban, supra (same); Lativista B.V. v. Nathaniela Kwidama / Latiform B.V. / Eleanor Mary Clarke / Olga Ovsienko / Henrik Petersen / Artem Hryva / Shaimil GASANTAEV, supra (same). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent used privacy registration services, multiple aliases, and in many instances underlying registration information containing internal contradictions, to register 10 domain names incorporating at least the distinctive portion of Complainant's registered mark. The domain names are being used for misleading websites that attempt to pass off as Complainant to promote directly competing services. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Razor Trade Corp. v. Mikhail Haraldson / Eugene Gonzales / - SC Global S.L.R. / Daryna Shkelebei, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Lativista B.V. v. Mandi Rua / Vitaliia Bolban / Yevhen Horodenskyi / Marharyta Stekachova / YURY ZANCHENKO, supra (same); Razor Trade Corp. v. Bernard Fleury / Alex Brown / Daryna Shkelebei / Vladyslav Panasenko / Mikhail Haraldson / Domain Admin / Privacy Protect LLC PrivacyProtect org, supra (same); DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Vitaliia Bolban, supra (same); Lativista B.V. v. Nathaniela Kwidama / Latiform B.V. / Eleanor Mary Clarke / Olga Ovsienko / Henrik Petersen / Artem Hryva / Shaimil GASANTAEV, supra (same). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <platin-casino.win>, <platincasino-se.com>, <platincasinoespana.com>, <platincasinobrasil.com>, <platincasinoca.com>, <platin-ie.com>, <platincasinosde.net>, <platincasino.ltd>, <platincasino.one>, and <casinoplatin.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: August 25, 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.