DECISION

 

BOVIVE LTD v. Erin Leskovar

Claim Number: FA2507002163606

 

PARTIES

Complainant is BOVIVE LTD ("Complainant"), represented by Anastasia Veltman of BOVIVE LTD, Cyprus. Respondent is Erin Leskovar ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wscasino1.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 1, 2025; Forum received payment on July 1, 2025.

 

On July 1, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wscasino1.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 July 2, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 22, 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@wscasino1.com. Also on July 2, 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 23, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: PRIOR COMPLAINT – Dismissed without prejudice

The present proceeding is a refiled case involving the Domain Name, initially filed in BOVIVE LTD v. Mylon Hilderman / Erin Leskovar / Alex Muller, FA2505002154299 (Forum Jun. 16, 2025). In that case, the complaint against the Domain Name was dismissed without prejudice because the Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that all the disputed domain names the subject of that case were registered by the same person or entity.

 

According to paragraph 4.18 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview"), panels have accepted refiled complaints where the case has previously been decided expressly on a "without prejudice" basis.

 

Accordingly, the Panel accepts the refiled Complaint.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Since 2022 Complainant has operated an online casino from its website at www.winspirit.com ("Complainant's Website") and under a composite mark consisting of the elements WS WIN SPIRIT ("WS WIN SPIRIT mark"). The WS element in the WS WIN SPIRIT mark consists of the letters WS in highly stylized form on top of a playing card ("WS Logo"). Complainant has rights in the WS WIN SPIRIT mark through its registration of the mark with the Estonian trademark authority and the Australian trademark authority ("IP Australia") (e.g., Reg. No. 2,473,926 registered August 13, 2024).  Respondent's <wscasino1.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it incorporates the dominant WS element of the WS WIN SPIRIT mark and adds the descriptive terms "casino 1" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <wscasino1.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the WS WIN SPIRIT mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is attempting to profit from confusing users into believing that the Respondent's Website belongs to Complainant by reproducing Complainant's WS Logo, other material from the Complainant's Website and offering competing gaming services. 

 

Respondent registered and uses the <wscasino1.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to disrupt Complainant's business and divert customers for commercial gain. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the WS WIN SPIRIT mark at the time of registration evidenced by the use of the WS Logo mark on the Respondent's Website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the WS WIN SPIRIT mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WS WIN SPIRIT mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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 rights in the WS WIN SPIRIT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with IP Australia (e.g., Reg. No. 2,473,926 registered August 13, 2024). Registration of a mark with the IP Australia is sufficient to establish rights in that mark.  See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).

 

The Panel finds that the <wscasino1.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WS WIN SPIRIT mark as it contains the distinctive WS word portion of the WS WIN SPIRIT mark (noting that the absence of stylization is discounted as it is not able to be reproduced in a domain name) with the addition the generic or descriptive terms "casino 1" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").  Addition of generic or descriptive terms and a gTLD to an abbreviation of a trademark is generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("Respondent merely adds the term 'supports' and a '.org' gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also SEMCO Prods., LLC v. dmg world media (uk) ltd, FA 913881 (Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the <atlhomeshow.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant's ATLANTA HOME SHOW mark, as "atl" was a common abbreviation for the city of Atlanta).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

In support of the above conclusion on confusing similarity, the Panel notes that section 1.15 of the WIPO Overview states that "In some instances, panels have however taken note of the content of the website associated with a domain name to confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name."  In the present case, by reason of the facts outlined under the elements below, it is clear that Respondent has sought to target and indeed pass itself off as Complainant through the use of the Domain Name.  The Panel finds that the intention of Respondent to mislead Internet users into thinking it is Complainant or connected with Complainant confirms the confusingly similar nature of the Domain Name.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See HannWS WIN SPIRITarbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the WS WIN SPIRIT mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS information of record lists "Erin Leskovar" as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name resolves to the Respondent's Website which, through the reproduction of the WS Logo and other references to the Complaint, (such as the fact that it has a licence issued by the regulator in Curaçao) and various device elements copied from the Complainant's Website, passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant for the purpose of offering competing gambling services (or redirecting visitors to third party websites offering gambling services). The use of a confusingly similar domain name to divert internet users to a website offering services in competition with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). See also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name (August 23, 2024), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's WS WIN SPIRIT mark since the Respondent's Website passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant or entity connected to Complainant including reproducing Complainant's WS Logo, design elements copied from Complainant's Website and reference to website being licensed in Curaçao (where the Complainant is licensed). Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that contains the WS portion of the WS WIN SPIRIT mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website offering competing services under the WS Logo mark other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the WS WIN SPIRIT mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's WS WIN SPIRIT mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website that offers competing gambling services while (through the use of the WS Logo) falsely asserting a connection with Complainant that does not exist.  Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). See also See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <wscasino1.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: July 24, 2025