DECISION
Lativista B.V. v. YURY ZANCHENKO / Costakis Alexandrou / Skyrocket Group Ventures Ltd / Alexander Nowak / Nowks comp. / Tim Michael Scholler / Andrey Prokopjev / Olga Ovsienko / Maksym Chuiko / Wilhelm Berwald
Claim Number: FA2602002206669
PARTIES
Complainant is Lativista B.V. ("Complainant"), represented by Kamal Tserakhau of REVERA Polska sp. z o.o., Poland. Respondent is YURY ZANCHENKO / Costakis Alexandrou / Skyrocket Group Ventures Ltd / Alexander Nowak / Nowks comp. / Tim Michael Scholler / Andrey Prokopjev / Olga Ovsienko / Maksym Chuiko / Wilhelm Berwald ("Respondent"), Various Locations.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <platincasino.shop>, <platincasino-canada.com>, <casino-platin.org>, <playplatincasino.com>, <platin-casino.bet>, <theplatincasino.com>, <platincasino-espana.com>, and <platincasino-nz.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu; Name.Com, Inc.; Namecheap, Inc.; Spaceship, Inc.; and Dynadot 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.
Adam Taylor as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 23, 2026; Forum received payment on February 23, 2026.
On Feb 23, 2026; Feb 24, 2026; Feb 26, 2026, Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu; Name.Com, Inc.; Namecheap, Inc.; Spaceship, Inc.; Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <platincasino.shop>, <platincasino-canada.com>, <casino-platin.org>, <playplatincasino.com>, <platin-casino.bet>, <theplatincasino.com>, <platincasino-espana.com>, and <platincasino-nz.com> domain names are registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu; Name.Com, Inc.; Namecheap, Inc.; Spaceship, Inc.; and Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu; Name.Com, Inc.; Namecheap, Inc.; Spaceship, Inc.; and Dynadot Inc have verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu; Name.Com, Inc.; Namecheap, Inc.; Spaceship, Inc.; and Dynadot Inc 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, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 23, 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@platincasino.shop, postmaster@platincasino-canada.com, postmaster@casino-platin.org, postmaster@playplatincasino.com, postmaster@platin-casino.bet, postmaster@theplatincasino.com, postmaster@platincasino-espana.com, and postmaster@platincasino-nz.com. Also on March 3, 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 March 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor 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 Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names are subject to common control, this not having been denied by Respondent, and that, in the circumstances, consolidation is fair and equitable to all parties, and also procedurally efficient. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.11.
In particular, the Panel notes that:
- all of the disputed domain names include the words "platin" and "casino";
- three of the disputed domain names are in the format "platincasino-" followed by a country name/reference;
- all of the disputed domain names are being used for websites that create the impression of an official connection with Complainant;
- some of the websites include similar design elements to each other;
- none of the websites that purport to offer gambling services actually do so;
- all of the websites divert users to Complainant's competitors;
- four of the registrants are allegedly located in Ukraine;
- many of the addresses contain anomalies indicating that they are fake, suggestive of a single controller; and
- none of the registrants have objected to consolidation.
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants in a single proceeding.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that it has rights in the PLATIN P CASINO mark based upon registration of its mark with the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") and in the PLATIN CASINO mark based upon common law rights arising from long-standing continuous business use. The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; on the contrary, Respondent has used the disputed domain names to misleadingly divert customers to Complainant's competitors. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is evidenced by Complainant's fame and by Respondent's use of Complainant's logo, designs and imagery. Respondent has used the disputed domain names to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark for commercial gain.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant operates a website at www.platincasino.com.
The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates:
<playplatincasino.com> - December 15, 2016
<platincasino-espana.com> - August 22, 2024
<platin-casino.bet> - March 24, 2025
<casino-platin.org> - July 10, 2025
<platincasino-nz.com> - December 3, 2025
<theplatincasino.com> - December 9, 2025
<platincasino-canada.com> - January 19, 2026
<platincasino.shop> - January 30, 2026
All of the disputed domain names have been used to resolved to websites that are branded with "Platin Casino" or variations, some including Complainant's logo, designs and/or imagery, and which purport to offer gambling services or reviews of Complainant, and all of which link to Complainant's competitors.
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 provided evidence of registration of the PLATIN P CASINO mark with WIPO.
Complainant also asserts common law rights in the PLATIN CASINO mark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) (finding that "The Policy does not require a complainant to own a registered trademark … if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark."). To establish common law rights in a name, a complainant generally must show extensive and continuous use in commerce such that consumers have come to associate the mark with the complainant as the source of the goods.
In this case, Complainant has provided evidence of common law rights in the PLATIN CASINO mark, based on extensive use since 2012. Furthermore, Respondent has not contested such rights.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the PLATIN P CASINO and PLATIN CASINO marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names <platincasino.shop> and <platin-casino.bet> are identical to Complainant's PLATIN CASINO mark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <casino-platin.org> is confusingly similar to Complainant's PLATIN CASINO mark as it simply inverts the elements "platin" and "casino". Merely inverting the elements of a Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy; see Hourglass Angel, LLC v. Pham Dinh Nhut, FA 1556334 (Forum June 12, 2014) ("…the Panel concludes that Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HOURGLASS ANGEL mark because it transposes the words in the mark, adds a gTLD, and eliminates the space between the words.").
The disputed domain names <platincasino-canada.com>, <playplatincasino.com> , <theplatincasino.com>, <platincasino-espana.com>, and <platincasino-nz.com> incorporate Complainant's distinctive PLATIN CASINO mark and add hyphens and/or
descriptive and/or geographic terms. It is well established under the Policy that the incorporation of a complainant's mark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity, even when combined with additional terms. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.").
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 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 argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
As discussed under the third element below, the Panel considers that Respondent has used the disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking Complainant's goods and/or services. Such activity is plainly not bona fide. Nor does it qualify as legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrants as "YURY ZANCHENKO / Costakis Alexandrou / Skyrocket Group Ventures Ltd / Alexander Nowak / Nowks comp. / Tim Michael Scholler / Andrey Prokopjev / Olga Ovsienko / Maksym Chuiko / Wilhelm Berwald" and there is no other information indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel considers that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
First, the disputed domain names reflect Complainant's distinctive mark.
Second, Respondent has used the disputed domain names for websites that create the impression that they are associated with Complainant, including by prominent use of Complainant's mark/logo, designs and imagery and by purporting to offer goods or services identical or similar to those of Complainant, and which divert users to Complainant's competitors.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has 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 <platincasino.shop>, <platincasino-canada.com>, <casino-platin.org>, <playplatincasino.com>, <platin-casino.bet>, <theplatincasino.com>, <platincasino-espana.com>, and <platincasino-nz.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Adam Taylor, Panelist
Dated: March 25, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page