DECISION

 

Fergal Investments Limited v. Vittoria Pinzi / Tore Crusenstolpe / Olena Natalych

Claim Number: FA2511002186821

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Fergal Investments Limited ("Complainant"), represented by Kamal Tserakhau of REVERA Polska sp. z o.o., Poland. Respondent is Vittoria Pinzi / Tore Crusenstolpe / Olena Natalych ("Respondent"), Various Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <letslucky-play.com>, <letslucky-casino.org>, <letslucky-no.com>, and <letslucky1.bet>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; and OwnRegistrar, 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.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 4, 2025; Forum received payment on November 4, 2025.

 

On Nov 04, 2025; Nov 05, 2025, NameCheap, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; and OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <letslucky-play.com>, <letslucky-casino.org>, <letslucky-no.com>, and <letslucky1.bet> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; and OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; and OwnRegistrar, Inc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; and OwnRegistrar, Inc. registration agreements and have thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On November 10, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 1, 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@letslucky-play.com, postmaster@letslucky-casino.org, postmaster@letslucky-no.com, and postmaster@letslucky1.bet. Also on November 10, 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 December 2, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Jeffrey J. Neuman 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

The Complaint names multiple Respondents in connection with the disputed domain names. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules permits a complaint to relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. Panels have interpreted this provision to allow consolidation where domain names are nominally registered to different persons but are, in fact, subject to common ownership or control.

 

As summarized in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, panels considering consolidation "look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties." The Overview further notes that "[p]rocedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario." See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.11.

 

In this case, the Complainant expressly requests consolidation and contends that the disputed domain names, although registered in the names of multiple nominal respondents, are controlled by a single entity operating under multiple aliases. In support of this request, the Complainant points to a number of factual circumstances which the Panel has reviewed in light of the record as a whole.

 

The record reflects that each disputed domain name incorporates the LET'S LUCKY mark in its entirety and follows a similar naming pattern, often combining the mark with a hyphen and a descriptive or geographic term. The evidence further shows that the disputed domain names have been used in a consistent manner, namely to host websites that imitate the content and appearance of the Complainant's Original Website and/or to redirect Internet users to competing online gambling platforms. Panels have recognized that such uniform targeting of the same mark and business sector may support an inference of coordinated registration and use.

 

The Panel further notes evidence that at least some of the disputed domain names display identical or substantially similar website content and, in certain instances, redirect users to the same third-party competitor website, <71ninecasino84.com>, using identical referral links. Such similarities in content and redirection behavior have been considered by panels as relevant indicia of common control.

 

The record also indicates overlapping technical characteristics among the disputed domain names. In particular, the Complainant has identified instances in which certain domain names shared the same IP addresses, and evidence that the disputed domain names route traffic through Cloudflare's network, with Cloudflare acting as a reverse proxy or content delivery network. The disputed domain names also make use of similar Cloudflare name servers. While the Panel recognizes that the use of shared infrastructure services is not, by itself, determinative, these technical similarities may be considered in combination with other factors.

 

With respect to registrant information, the disclosed WHOIS data contains inconsistencies and apparent irregularities, including mismatches between stated addresses, country codes, and email services. The Panel also notes evidence that certain disputed domain names share the same registrant name and physical address, that at least two of the disputed domain names were registered through the same registrar, and that the registrations occurred within relatively close temporal proximity. Panels have regarded such patterns, particularly when combined with substantive similarities in use, as probative of common control.

 

The Panel further notes that the Complainant relies on prior UDRP decisions involving similar factual circumstances in which consolidation was permitted, including cases addressing coordinated domain name registrations targeting the same mark through the use of aliases, unreliable registration data, shared technical infrastructure, and near-identical website content. See, e.g., Fergal Investments Limited v. Eugene Gonzales et al., FA 2153635 (Forum June 5, 2025); Razor Trade Corporation v. Rui Marques Pedreiras et al., FA 2141521 (Forum Mar. 26, 2025); Target Brands, Inc. v. xing star et al., FA 2139956 (Forum Mar. 7, 2025).

 

None of the Respondents has submitted a Response disputing the Complainant's allegations of common control or objecting to consolidation. While respondent default alone is not determinative, the absence of any rebuttal allows the Panel to accept supported factual assertions where they are reasonable and consistent with the record. The Panel further finds that consolidation in this proceeding is fair and equitable, as the disputed domain names involve the same trademark, similar alleged conduct, and substantially overlapping factual and legal issues. Consolidation also promotes procedural efficiency and reduces the risk of inconsistent outcomes without depriving any party of notice or an opportunity to be heard.

 

Having considered the totality of the circumstances, and applying the principles set forth in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.11, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are subject to common ownership or control within the meaning of paragraph 3(c) of the Rules. Accordingly, the Panel grants the Complainant's request for consolidation and treats all named registrants collectively as a single Respondent for purposes of this proceeding.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Fergal Investments Limited, is a company incorporated under the laws of Cyprus with its registered office in Nicosia, Cyprus. Complainant states that in mid-2022 it, together with its partner Hollycorn N.V., launched an online casino platform under the brand name "Let's Lucky", operating from Complainant's domain name <letslucky.com> (the "Original Website"). Complainant asserts that Hollycorn N.V. is incorporated in Curaçao and holds a Curaçao e-gaming license (No. OGL/2023/176/0095) issued by the Curaçao Gaming Control Board, under which the Let's Lucky Casino operates.

 

Complainant further states that the Original Website offers online gaming and entertainment services to EU users, including slot and live casino games, and that it has promoted the Let's Lucky brand through marketing activities such as bonuses and tournaments. Complainant cites Google Trends data which, it says, reflects increased search interest in the "Let's Lucky" term following launch of the Original Website.

 

Complainant states that it obtained registration of the LET'S LUCKY mark as a European Union trademark on February 4, 2023, in connection with goods and services related to its online casino and entertainment business.

 

Complainant alleges that after the Let's Lucky brand gained public attention, third parties registered domain names incorporating the LET'S LUCKY mark and used them to create unauthorized copies of the Original Website and to redirect Internet users to competing gambling websites.

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are examples of such conduct and asserts that WHOIS records indicate the disputed domain names were registered following the increase in popularity of the Let's Lucky brand beginning around June 2024, which Complainant argues supports an inference of Respondent's knowledge of the mark at the time of registration.

 

On the merits under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its LET'S LUCKY mark because they incorporate the mark in its entirety with only minor additions (e.g., descriptive terms such as "play" or "casino," a geographic abbreviation such as "no," or the numeral "1") and/or different gTLDs (including ".org" and ".bet"). Complainant argues that these differences do not dispel confusing similarity and further contends that the disputed domain names suggest an affiliation with Complainant, particularly because the associated websites are alleged to mimic the Original Website.

 

Complainant contends Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names resolve to websites that copy or closely resemble the Original Website, display Complainant's mark, and then redirect users—when they click "LOG IN," "SIGN UP," or other buttons—to competitor gambling websites, including <71ninecasino84.com> (for <letslucky-casino.org> and <letslucky1.bet>) and <92fortunicabet.com> (for <letslucky-no.com>). Complainant also contends Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.

 

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), Complainant contends Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith, alleging Respondent intentionally sought to attract users by creating confusingly similar domain names and websites that imitate the Original Website's content, design elements, and branding, and then redirect users to competing services for commercial gain. Complainant asserts Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark when registering the disputed domain names, based on timing and the alleged copying of the Original Website and mark.

 

Finally, Complainant requests transfer of <letslucky-play.com>, <letslucky-casino.org>, <letslucky-no.com>, and <letslucky1.bet>.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names 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 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 rights in the LET'S LUCKY mark through its registration as a European Union figurative trademark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office ("EUIPO") (Reg. No. 018768899), filed September 28, 2022 and registered February 4, 2023. Registration of a trademark with a national or regional trademark office, including the EUIPO, is generally sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See, e.g., DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the LET'S LUCKY mark.

 

The remaining question under the first element is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Where a trademark includes figurative or design elements, panels assess confusing similarity by comparing the disputed domain name with the textual components of the mark. As explained in Yelloh! Village SAS v. Helmut Gessler, WIPO Case No. D2021-1682, citing section 1.10 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, design or stylized elements that cannot be represented in a domain name are largely disregarded, and the analysis turns on whether the textual elements of the mark are recognizable within the domain name.

 

Here, the dominant and clearly recognizable element of Complainant's EU figurative mark is the textual component LET'S LUCKY, which is reproduced in its entirety in each of the disputed domain names. The addition of descriptive terms, geographic abbreviations, numerals, or generic top-level domains—such as "play," "casino," "no," the numeral "1," or the gTLDs ".com," ".org," and ".bet"—does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity where the complainant's mark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018); see also LodgeWorks Partners, L.P. v. Isaac Goldstein / POSTE RESTANTE, FA 1717300 (Forum Apr. 5, 2017).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's LET'S LUCKY mark and that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Once such a prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006); see also Advanced Int'l Mktg. Corp. v. AA-1 Corp., FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011). Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names, has not been authorized or licensed to use the LET'S LUCKY mark, and is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

The record establishes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). As discussed above, the WHOIS information associated with the disputed domain names is unreliable and internally inconsistent, and there is no evidence that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain names or by the LET'S LUCKY mark. Panels have consistently held that false, incomplete, or misleading WHOIS information does not support a finding that a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006). In addition, there is no evidence that Respondent has been authorized or licensed to use Complainant's mark, which further supports a finding that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. See Emerson Elec. Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018).

 

Nor is there any evidence that Respondent is using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The evidence submitted by Complainant demonstrates that the websites resolving from the disputed domain names either replicate or closely mimic the look and feel of Complainant's official website, including the prominent display of the LET'S LUCKY mark, thereby creating a false impression that users have reached Complainant's website. See Compl. Annexes G–J.

 

Despite this presentation, Respondent does not provide any casino or gaming services of its own. Instead, when users click on "LOG IN," "SIGN UP," or similar buttons on Respondent's websites, they are redirected to third-party online gambling platforms that compete directly with Complainant. Specifically, archived evidence shows that <letslucky-play.com> previously redirected users to a competing online gambling website; <letslucky-casino.org> and <letslucky1.bet> redirect users to the same competing casino platform; and <letslucky-no.com> redirects users to another competing gambling website. In other instances, the disputed domain names resolve to parked pages displaying pay-per-click links that direct users to competing online casino services. See Compl. Annexes G–J.

 

Panels have repeatedly held that using a disputed domain name incorporating a complainant's mark to divert Internet users to competing websites or pay-per-click links for commercial gain is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that diversion of users to websites containing links to a complainant's competitors is not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also iFinex Inc. v. Yuri Hefetz / Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018).

 

The Panel further finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain names is not "fair," as Respondent has incorporated the LET'S LUCKY mark in its entirety into the domain names, which falsely suggests affiliation, sponsorship, or endorsement by Complainant. Such use seeks to exploit Complainant's reputation and goodwill to mislead users and divert them to competing and unaffiliated gambling services, and therefore cannot confer rights or legitimate interests under the Policy.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary from Respondent, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, which Respondent has failed to rebut.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Whether a domain name is registered and used in bad faith may be determined by reference to the non-exhaustive circumstances set forth in Policy ¶ 4(b). Here, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).

 

First, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's LET'S LUCKY mark at the time of registration. The disputed domain names were registered in 2024 and 2025, during a period when Complainant's brand and official website were already well-established and widely used. The websites associated with the disputed domain names copy or closely mirror Complainant's original website, including the display of Complainant's trademark elements, creative imagery, and identical color palette. Such deliberate mirroring demonstrates actual knowledge of Complainant's mark prior to registration. See Snap Inc. v. Alexandre Decaudain / webgear, FA 1945395 (Forum June 22, 2021) (finding evidence of actual knowledge where respondent's use mirrored complainant's mark and website content). Under these circumstances, it is inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of Complainant's rights.

 

Second, the evidence establishes that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement, in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent's websites present themselves as versions of Complainant's official site, prominently displaying the LET'S LUCKY mark and adopting the same overall look and feel. However, Respondent does not provide casino or gaming services of its own. Instead, when users click "LOG IN," "SIGN UP," or similar buttons, they are redirected to third-party online gambling websites that compete directly with Complainant. Specifically, <letslucky-play.com> previously redirected users to a competing gambling site; <letslucky-casino.org> and <letslucky1.bet> redirect users to the same competing casino platform; and <letslucky-no.com> redirects users to another competing gambling service. See Compl. Annexes G–J. Using confusingly similar domain names and clone websites to divert users to competitors for commercial gain constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Council on Educ. & GED Testing Serv. LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA 1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018); Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Forum Nov. 11, 2003).

 

Third, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names primarily to disrupt Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). By diverting Internet users seeking Complainant's official website to competing gambling platforms, Respondent interferes with Complainant's customer relationships and siphons traffic to competitors. See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) (finding bad faith where respondent used a confusingly similar domain name to link to competing services).

 

Finally, the Panel notes that Respondent's use of false, misleading, and internally inconsistent registrant information, as discussed above, further supports an inference of bad faith, as it reflects an effort to conceal identity while engaging in infringing and deceptive conduct.

 

Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith 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 <letslucky-play.com>, <letslucky-casino.org>, <letslucky-no.com>, and <letslucky1.bet> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Panelist

Dated: December 16, 2025