Gembet1.org

The timeline behind gembet1.org

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Grand Complications N.V. v. LE THI THAO Claim Number: FA2607002236004 PARTIES Complainant is Grand Complications N.V. ("Complainant"), represented by Christiana Georgiou of Grand Complications N.V., Cyprus. Respondent is LE THI THAO ("Respondent"), Vietnam. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <gembet1.org>, registered with Spaceship, Inc. 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. Steven M. Levy as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 30, 2026; Forum received payment on July 30, 2026. On July 31, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <gembet1.org> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, Inc. 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 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 26, 2026 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@gembet1.org. Also on August 6, 2026, the 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. On August 27, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, a company organized under the laws of Cyprus, operates an online betting and gaming platform under the trademark GEMBET which it states has been in use since 2019. It owns registered rights in the mark, including Reg. No. 21020 issued by the Bureau for Intellectual Property of Curaçao and Reg. No. UK00004045458 issued by the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office. The <gembet1.org> domain name, registered on February 19, 2026, is confusingly similar to the GEMBET mark as it contains the mark in its entirety. The addition of a number and a TLD does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity and Complainant's mark remains the dominant and recognizable element of the domain name. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the name "GemBet" or any similar name, it holds no trademark rights in that term, and Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use the GEMBET mark in any form. Further, the disputed domain name is not used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services but, rather, resolves to an online gambling website that closely mimics Complainant's GEMBET platform in design, content and branding, displaying Complainant's trademarked GEMBET logo and color schemes so as to divert users and trade upon Complainant's goodwill for commercial gain. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It was registered after Complainant's trademark filing and years after Complainant began using the GEMBET brand.1 The prominent display of Complainant's logo at the resolving website demonstrates Respondent's knowledge of the GEMBET brand and an intent to mislead visitors into believing that the site is affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant. By incorporating the GEMBET mark into the disputed domain name and offering gambling services thereunder, Respondent intentionally attracts internet users to its website, trading on Complainant's goodwill and causing confusion. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS - Complainant owns trademark rights in the GEMBET mark and the <gembet1.org> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark; - Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known thereby and the domain name resolves to a website that passes itself off as Complainant and offers competing online gambling services; and - The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith based on the above-mentioned activity. 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 3.1 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 asserts rights in the GEMBET mark through its registrations with the Bureau for Intellectual Property of Curaçao and the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office ("UKIPO"). Registration of a mark with a national trademark authority is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), and this is so even where a respondent is located in another country. See Russell & Bromley Limited v. KIM H. SUK, FA 1729773 (Forum June 12, 2017) ("Registration with the UKIPO (or any other governmental authority) is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy §4(a)(i), even if Respondent is located in another country."); see also HDR Global Trading Limited v. David Czinczenheim, FA 2007568 (Forum Sep. 8, 2022) ("It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights.") Here, Complainant submits copies of its asserted registration certificates for the word mark GemBet. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the GEMBET mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that the <gembet1.org> domain name is confusingly similar to its GEMBET mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the addition of a number to a mark, together with a TLD, is typically insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from that mark. See Pandora Media, Inc. v. MASATAMI KITA, FA 1622614 (Forum July 20, 2015) (holding the <pandora1.com> domain name confusingly similar to the PANDORA trademark because the only difference between the two was the addition of the numeral "1"); see also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.") The disputed domain name incorporates the GEMBET mark in its entirety and adds only the numeral "1" and the ".org" TLD, the latter of which is generally disregarded as it conveys no distinctiveness here. These minimal changes do not reduce confusion and so the Panel finds that Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests"). Complainant first asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that it has never authorized Respondent to use the GEMBET mark in any form. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The public WHOIS record, as revealed by the concerned Registrar, identifies Respondent as "Le Thi Thao" and Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to claim that it is known otherwise. Further, the fact that Complainant's mark appears at Respondent's website does not, itself, indicate that Respondent is commonly known thereby where such use appears intended to create consumer confusion. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.") Therefore, the Panel finds insufficient evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, addressing Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), Complainant asserts that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, because the resolving website mimics Complainant's own platform and offers competing online gambling services. Passing oneself off as a complainant and diverting users to a respondent's webpage is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).") Complainant submits a screenshot of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves together with a screenshot of its own official website. Respondent's site displays, at the top of its homepage, a reproduction of the GEMBET mark accompanied by the same stylized graphic logo that appears on Complainant's own website, and it offers online casino, sports betting, lottery, and card game services of the very type that Complainant provides under its mark. The page also uses a nearly identical shade of blue as its background and it carries banner advertisements for a number of other betting websites. From this evidence the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent seeks to pass itself off as Complainant. As noted above, this shifts the burden of proof to Respondent but it has not participated in these proceedings and so has not rebutted Complainant's case. Thus, the Panel finds, by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not), that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GEMBET mark based upon Respondent's display of that mark, and Complainant's associated logo, at the resolving website. Actual knowledge of a complainant's trademark rights may form a solid foundation upon which to establish bad faith and it may be inferred where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to pass itself off as a complainant. See Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) ("[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration") Here, the fact that Respondent's website reproduces not merely the word GEMBET but the stylized graphic logo that Complainant uses at its own site is telling. Any denial of knowledge on these facts would be implausible and the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GEMBET mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name. Next, the Complaint asserts that Respondent offers services in competition with Complainant and seeks commercial gain based upon confusion with the GEMBET mark. This sets out claims for bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Zapier, Inc. v. Manohar Chapalamadugu / Agile CRM Inc., FA 2049262 (Forum July 23, 2023) (where the disputed "domain name resolves to a website that purports to do exactly what Complainant does", the Panel found that Respondent is "using the disputed domain name to offer competing services under the same mark, and thus, attracting unsuspecting Zapier customers to its infringing website, and disrupting and damaging Zapier's business.") Based on the screenshots submitted into evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent uses the GEMBET mark, and its associated logo, to offer online gaming and gambling services that compete with the services Complainant provides under that mark. Internet users who arrive at the disputed domain name are likely to believe, at least initially, that they have reached Complainant's own platform or one that is affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant, and Respondent stands to profit from that confusion while diverting business away from Complainant. By a preponderance of the evidence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith to target and compete with Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv), and thus under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <gembet1.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Steven M. Levy, Panelist Dated: August 29, 2026 [1] The Complaint states that "[t]he disputed domain was registered on 9 Dec 2025 (gembet-app.com); after the Complainant's trade‑mark filing and years after the brand had been used." The domain name disputed in this proceeding, however, is <gembet1.org> and the public WHOIS record submitted by Complainant shows that this was created on February 19, 2026. The Panel considers the reference to the <gembet-app.com> domain name and its creation date to have been made in error, most likely through the reuse of material prepared for a different dispute. While the mistake is not material to the outcome here, Complainant's representative is alerted to it as guidance in the preparation of any future complaints. 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.