DECISION
Sunwin Vibes Ltd v. Anthony Simpson
Claim Number: FA2510002183004
PARTIES
Complainant is Sunwin Vibes Ltd ("Complainant"), represented by Luu Van Duy of Sunwin Vibes Ltd, United Kingdom. Respondent is Anthony Simpson ("Respondent"), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sunwin.com>, registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
PANEL
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 15, 2025. Forum received payment on October 15, 2025.
On October 15, 2025, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sunwin.com> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, LLC 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 October 17, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 6, 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@sunwin.com. Also on October 17, 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 November 7, 2025, 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 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, Sunwin Vibes Ltd, is the bona fide owner of the SUNWIN trademark and related brand. Complainant established its business around 2019 and operates primarily in the online gaming/casino sector via its domain <sun.win>. Complainant holds registered trademarks for SUNWIN in key jurisdictions, including the United States (USPTO Registration No. 98779496) and the United Kingdom. These registrations are a standard and necessary measure for a growing global brand to protect against phishing and consumer confusion.
The domain name <sunwin.com> is identical to Complainant's registered SUNWIN trademark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <sunwin.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the name "Sunwin". Any claim to such a name, based on a company registration from 2024, is a recent fabrication that does not establish longstanding rights. Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services for over 25 years. The domain does not host any active content related to Respondent's claimed business lines. Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name.
The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent's actions demonstrate a clear pattern of bad faith registration and use, as follows:
Commercial Exploitation of Trademark Value
The domain currently resolves to a parking page but is not passive. Third-party SEO analysis (Ahrefs) confirms it has a Domain Rating (DR) of 34 and attracts organic traffic, primarily from Vietnam. This traffic is driven by numerous backlinks from Vietnamese gambling/casino sites using "sunwin" anchors, directly targeting Complainant's core industry. Respondent monetizes this misdirected traffic through pay-per-click ads or similar schemes on the parking page, commercially gaining from confusion with Complainant's mark. This is a textbook example of bad faith under UDRP jurisprudence.
Passive Holding in a Context of Bad Faith
The domain's last update was on June 13, 2018, and it has never hosted legitimate content. In the context of the other compelling evidence, this passive holding reinforces the finding of bad faith.
Preemptive Refutation of Respondent's Sham Defense
Respondent may attempt to claim rights based on a "Sunwin" company registered in 2024. This claim is spurious.
The domain was registered in 1999, meaning it was held for over 24 years without any corresponding legal entity, refuting any longstanding legitimate interest.
The timing of the company's creation, years after Complainant's brand gained fame, suggests it is a transparent attempt to create a retroactive justification for cybersquatting. Crucially, the company's registered business (real estate/communications) is completely disconnected from the domain's actual use (monetizing casino traffic), proving the domain is used to free ride on Complainant's trademark, not for Respondent's own legitimate activities.
Failure to Respond to Good-Faith Inquiries
Complainant's multiple attempts to contact Respondent for good-faith negotiation were ignored, further indicating a lack of legitimate interest.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has failed to establish 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, 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 claims that it holds registered trademarks for SUNWIN in the United States (USPTO Registration No. 98779496) and the United Kingdom. Complainant has shown that its Legal Representative, Duy, Luu Van, has rights in the United States registered figurative service mark AAA SUN.WIN, disclaiming ".WIN", namely USPTO Serial No. 98-779,496, filed on January 10, 2024 and registered on August 26, 2025 under Registration No. 7,913,235, claiming first use in commerce on April 28, 2024, for inter alia "Gaming services in the nature of casino gaming, in International Class 41.
Complainant has shown that, on August 6, 2025, it applied in the UK to register the figurative mark SUNWIN VIBES for inter alia "Downloadable and non-downloadable gaming software", in International Class 9. That application is currently pending and will not give rise to trademark rights unless and until the mark is registered.
There is no evidence on the record that, through use, Complainant has acquired common law rights in any SUNWIN or SUNWIN-related marks.
The Panel finds Respondent's <sunwin.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the textual elements of Complainant's Legal Representative's AAA SUN.WIN mark, differing only by the addition of the letters "AAA" and the removal of the dot between the words. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).
Assuming for present purposes that Complainant's Legal Representative registered the mark as agent for Complainant, the Panel finds that Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
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 the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(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 <sunwin.com> domain name was registered on October 7, 1999, some 20 years before Complainant claims to have established its business; some 17 years before Complainant registered its <sun.win> domain name; and some 25 years before Complainant's claimed first use in commerce of its AAA SUN.WIN mark. There is no evidence that the domain name has been transferred to a different registrant since it was registered. Even if the domain name's last update, on June 13, 2018, did involve a transfer to Respondent from a prior registrant, any such transfer would have taken place prior to Complainant's claimed first use of its mark.
Under these circumstances the Panel finds that Respondent could not have been aware of Complainant or its then unused AAA SUN.WIN mark when Respondent registered the <sunwin.com> domain name and that, accordingly, irrespective as to whether Respondent might have been using the domain name in bad faith since Complainant acquired its trademark rights, Respondent could not have registered the domain name in bad faith.
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Reverse domain name hijacking
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name". Rule 15(e) provides, in part:
"If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."
Complainant's Annex G is a copy of email correspondence sent to Respondent on 23 September (presumably 2025) about the <sunwin.com> domain name, stating:
"Dear
I want to buy this domain. Can we make a deal as $3,000?
Thanks".
In the Panel's view, this is a classic "Plan B" case, i.e., using the Policy after failing in the marketplace to acquire the domain name. This stratagem has been described in several UDRP cases as "a highly improper purpose" and has contributed to findings of RDNH. See, e.g., Patricks Universal Export Pty Ltd. v. David Greenblatt, WIPO Case No. D2016-0653 and BERNINA International AG v. Domain Administrator, Name Administration Inc. (BVI), WIPO Case No. D2016-1811.
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant and its Legal Representative must have known that this is not a case of bad faith registration and that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of this administrative proceeding.
DECISION
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sunwin.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: November 8, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page