DECISION

 

Razor Trade Corporation v. Rui Marques Pedreiras / Melona Richards / Yumeteki / Andriy Soroka / Eugene Gonzalez / Igor shanska / Linet Mkayla / Evgeniya TOLSTOVA / Alla Bazuk / Sergei Bodrov / Noname / Valeriya Krasilnikova

Claim Number: FA2502002141521

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Razor Trade Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Aliaksandr Struzhko of REVERA Polska sp. z o.o., Poland. Respondent is Rui Marques Pedreiras / Melona Richards / Yumeteki / Andriy Soroka / Eugene Gonzalez / Igor shanska / Linet Mkayla / Evgeniya TOLSTOVA / Alla Bazuk / Sergei Bodrov / Noname / Valeriya Krasilnikova ("Respondent"), Various Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <lukki-casino.net>, <lukki-casino.org>, <lukki-online.com>, <lukki-vip.com>, <lukki-play.com>, <casino-lukki.net>, <lukkicasino-aus.com>, <lukki-casinos.net>, <lukkicasino-play.com>, <lukkicasino-nz.com>, <lukkicasino.online>, <lukkionlinecasino.com>, <lukkicasino.one>, <lukkicasino-canada.com>, and <lukki-casino-online.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu; Spaceship, Inc.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; NameCheap, Inc.; Metaregistrar BV; Dynadot Inc; URL Solutions, Inc.; Realtime Register B.V.; and Porkbun 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 24, 2025; Forum received payment on February 24, 2025.

 

On Feb 24, 2025; Feb 25, 2025; Feb 26, 2025, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu; Spaceship, Inc.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; NameCheap, Inc.; Metaregistrar BV; Dynadot Inc; URL Solutions, Inc.; Realtime Register B.V.; Porkbun LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lukki-casino.net>, <lukki-casino.org>, <lukki-online.com>, <lukki-vip.com>, <lukki-play.com>, <casino-lukki.net>, <lukkicasino-aus.com>, <lukki-casinos.net>, <lukkicasino-play.com>, <lukkicasino-nz.com>, <lukkicasino.online>, <lukkionlinecasino.com>, <lukkicasino.one>, <lukkicasino-canada.com>, and <lukki-casino-online.com> domain names are registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu; Spaceship, Inc.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; NameCheap, Inc.; Metaregistrar BV; Dynadot Inc; URL Solutions, Inc.; Realtime Register B.V.; and Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu; Spaceship, Inc.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; NameCheap, Inc.; Metaregistrar BV; Dynadot Inc; URL Solutions, Inc.; Realtime Register B.V.; and Porkbun LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu; Spaceship, Inc.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; NameCheap, Inc.; Metaregistrar BV; Dynadot Inc; URL Solutions, Inc.; Realtime Register B.V.; and Porkbun LLC 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 March 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 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@lukki-casino.net, postmaster@lukki-casino.org, postmaster@lukki-online.com, postmaster@lukki-vip.com, postmaster@lukki-play.com, postmaster@casino-lukki.net, postmaster@lukkicasino-aus.com, postmaster@lukki-casinos.net, postmaster@lukkicasino-play.com, postmaster@lukkicasino-nz.com, postmaster@lukkicasino.online, postmaster@lukkionlinecasino.com, postmaster@lukkicasino.one, postmaster@lukkicasino-canada.com, and postmaster@lukki-casino-online.com. Also on March 3, 2025, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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. 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."  

 

Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are thematically and functionally interconnected, having been registered by a single entity operating under multiple aliases and utilizing false contact details, inter alia:

 

(i) Each domain name incorporates Complainant's LUKKI trademark in its entirety and is used either to host a replica of Complainant's original website or to redirect users to the websites of competitors.

 

(ii) WHOIS records for all domain names have been redacted and, upon disclosure, revealed fictitious registrant names such as "Noname" and suspicious email addresses created via anonymous email-generation services, thereby rendering the information unreliable.

 

(iii) A significant number of the domain names share identical or closely related IP addresses—most notably 120.138.29.181:8080, which was used in connection with nearly half of the registrations. The associated webmaster has repeatedly changed IP addresses and redirection patterns in an apparent attempt to obscure ownership and evade legal accountability.

 

(iv) Many of the domain names utilize the same or similar name servers provided by Cloudflare. Moreover, the clustered registration dates (e.g., February 2, March 3, and August 28, 2024) strongly suggest a coordinated effort by a single registrant.

The Panel concurs with Complainant's contention and determines that the domain names are commonly owned or controlled by a single Respondent operating under multiple aliases. For purposes of this proceeding, all such aliases shall be collectively referred to as "Respondent."

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) In late 2023, Complainant, in partnership with Dama N.V. of the DAMA Group, launched its online casino platform under the LUKKI brand at <lukki.com>. Dama N.V., licensed by the Curaçao Gaming Control Board (License No. OGL/2023/174/0082), ensures lawful and compliant operations. The "Lukki" website offers EU users a wide range of online entertainment, including slot and live casino games from top global providers. Following the launch, the LUKKI brand gained substantial public recognition, with Google Trends showing a sharp rise in searches for "Lukki Casino," especially in the "Games" category during December 2023 and January 2024. Complainant holds EUTM Registration No. 018951229 for the LUKKI mark, registered on January 21, 2025, and also claims common-law rights based on continuous use since the brand's inception in December 2023. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's LUKKI mark, as each incorporates the LUKKI mark in its entirety, merely adding minor elements, additional letters, or employing a different Top-Level Domain ("TLD"), all of which are unlikely to be perceived by the average consumer.

 

ii) Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant by operating websites that replicate or closely resemble Complainant's official site. However, Respondent offers no casino services itself; instead, its websites merely contain links to various online casino platforms operated by Complainant's competitors offering similar gambling and betting services.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent utilizes the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant and disrupt Complainant's business. Respondent's actions include impersonating and passing itself off as Complainant by hosting websites that replicate Complainant's own website. The resolving websites merely contain links to various online casino platforms operated by Complainant's competitors offering similar gambling and betting services. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LUKKI mark before registering the disputed domain names.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a formal Response in this proceeding. Forum received an email from "Euan Millar / Mel Richards" presumably in reference to the <lukki-casino-online.com> domain name stating, in substance:

 

I have been using this domain name in this email address for many years in good faith as an independent software developer. I would like to check what claims are being made and on what basis. Does the complainant have a registered trademark that conflicts with our domain?

 

FINDINGS

1. All of the disputed domain names were registered in a year between February 2, 2024 and January 25, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the LUKKI mark, i.e., EUTM Registration No. 018951229, registered on January 21, 2025 with the filing date of November 15, 2023.

 

3. Complainant has established common-law rights in the LUKKI mark based on continuous use since the mark's inception in December 2023.

 

4. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant by operating websites that replicate or closely resemble Complainant's official site.

 

5. Respondent offers no casino services itself; instead, its websites merely contain links to various online casino platforms operated by Complainant's competitors offering similar gambling and betting services.

 

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

Complainant asserts rights in the LUKKI mark, i.e., EUTM Registration No. 018951229, registered on January 21, 2025 with the filing date of November 15, 2023. Registration of a mark with the EUIPO is generally a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant provides evidence of its registration of the LUKKI mark with the EUIPO, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 

 

The Panel notes that all of the disputed domain names, with the exception of <lukkicasino-aus.com> (registered on January 25, 2025), were registered prior to Complainant's trademark registration. However, the Panel observes that the mere fact a domain name was registered before a complainant acquired trademark rights does not, in itself, preclude the complainant's standing to bring a UDRP complaint, nor does it prevent a panel from finding identity or confusing similarity under the first element. See Section 1.1.3 of WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0.

 

Complainant asserts common-law rights in the LUKKI mark based on continuous and substantial use since its inception in December 2023. The Panel notes that, to establish unregistered or common-law trademark rights under the Policy, Complainant must demonstrate that the mark has acquired distinctiveness and is perceived by consumers as a source identifier for Complainant's goods and/or services.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has achieved such recognition through its successful commercial operations and the significant public attention garnered by the LUKKI brand. In support, Complainant has submitted Google Trends data evidencing a marked increase in searches for "Lukki Casino" following the launch of its website, in contrast to negligible search activity beforehand. This trend is particularly pronounced in the "Games" category during December 2023 and January 2024—well before the registration of the disputed domain names.

 

The Panel also observes that Complainant filed an application for the LUKKI European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) on November 15, 2023, which proceeded to registration on January 21, 2025. In view of the above, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established common-law rights in the LUKKI mark as of a date preceding the registration of the disputed domain names.

 

Next, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's LUKKI mark, as each incorporates the mark in its entirety with only minor variations, such as the addition of descriptive terms (e.g., "casino," "online," "vip," or "play"), geographic identifiers (e.g., "aus," "nz," or "canada"), hyphens, or the use of alternative Top-Level Domains ("TLDs") like ".net," ".org," ".one," or ".online." The Panel concurs and finds that such minor modifications do not dispel the overall impression of similarity, particularly from the perspective of the average consumer. Rather, these alterations are indicative of typosquatting, wherein the disputed domain names remain virtually identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's LUKKI mark within the meaning of 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 names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "Rui Marques Pedreiras / Melona Richards / Yumeteki / Andriy Soroka / Eugene Gonzalez / Igor shanska / Linet Mkayla / Evgeniya TOLSTOVA / Alla Bazuk / Sergei Bodrov / Noname / Valeriya Krasilnikova" as the registrants, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate or fair use, as Respondent uses the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant with the intent to divert Complainant's user base to infringing websites that feature competing and overlapping goods and services. The act of passing off as Complainant for the purpose of marketing or directing traffic to competing goods or services does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it amount to a legitimate or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Yoshihiro Nakazawa, FA 1736477 (Forum July 21, 2017) ("A complainant can use assertions of passing off and offering competing goods or services to evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.").

 

Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve, demonstrating that they replicate or closely mimic Complainant's official site. The Panel notes that Respondent does not offer casino services of its own; instead, the disputed domain names' resolving websites merely contain links to various online casino platforms operated by Complainant's competitors, who offer similar gambling and betting services. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate or fair use.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing considerations. Each of these factors supports the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made against Respondent. As Respondent has neither submitted a Response nor otherwise sought to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent employs the disputed domain names to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's goods and services to infringing websites, thereby creating a false impression of affiliation with Complainant and directing traffic to Complainant's competitors for presumed commercial gain.

 

Complainant submits screenshots demonstrating that the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve replicate or closely mimic Complainant's official site. The Panel notes that Respondent offers no casino services of its own; instead, the resolving websites merely feature links to third-party platforms operated by Complainant's competitors that provide similar gambling and betting services.

 

Use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or services may constitute both bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) ("Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another."); see also American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA 1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) ("Respondent's hosting of links to Complainant's competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use...pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"). As previously noted, Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain names resolve to webpages containing third-party links to services that directly compete with those of Complainant. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LUKKI mark. While constructive notice is insufficient for a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge is sufficient. See 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.").

 

The Panel notes that Complainant has garnered public recognition through successful commercial operations and brand awareness of the LUKKI mark. In support, Complainant provides Google Trends data reflecting a significant increase in searches for "Lukki Casino" following the launch of its website, with a marked spike in the "Games" category during December 2023 and January 2024—well before the registration of the disputed domain names.

 

Given the notoriety of Complainant's mark and the manner in which the disputed domain names are used, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LUKKI mark at the time of registration, which supports a finding of bad faith registration 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 <lukki-casino.net>, <lukki-casino.org>, <lukki-online.com>, <lukki-vip.com>, <lukki-play.com>, <casino-lukki.net>, <lukkicasino-aus.com>, <lukki-casinos.net>, <lukkicasino-play.com>, <lukkicasino-nz.com>, <lukkicasino.online>, <lukkionlinecasino.com>, <lukkicasino.one>, <lukkicasino-canada.com>, and <lukki-casino-online.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: March 26, 2025