DECISION

 

Razor Trade Corporation v. Vasile-Ionut Crangan / Lead Total Limited / Eugene Gonzales / Derkan Klobs / my own company / Clara Cargano / BURES MOJMIR / Olexandr Ponomarenko / Valentyn Kobzev / Igor Vasilkovski / REDACTED / REDACTED

Claim Number: FA2603002212263

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Razor Trade Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Kamal Tserakhau of REVERA Polska sp. z o.o., Poland. Respondent is Vasile-Ionut Crangan / Lead Total Limited / Eugene Gonzales / Derkan Klobs / my own company / Clara Cargano / BURES MOJMIR / Olexandr Ponomarenko / Valentyn Kobzev / Igor Vasilkovski / REDACTED /  REDACTED  ("Respondent"), Various Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasino-au.biz>, <just-casino-win.com>, <justcasino-pokies.net>, <just-nz.com>, <justcasinos.info>, <justcasino-play.com>, <casinojust.org>, <just-au.net>, <nz-justcasino.com>, and <justcasinonz.net>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.; Spaceship, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED; CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; and GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

For the reasons given below, the Panel finds that the only relevant domain names for this case are <justcasino-pokies.net>, <justcasinos.info>, <casinojust.org>, <nz-justcasino.com>, and <justcasinonz.net>.

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 25, 2026; Forum received payment on March 25, 2026.

 

On Mar 25, 2026; Mar 26, 2026; Mar 27, 2026, NameCheap, Inc.; Spaceship, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED; CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasino-au.biz>, <just-casino-win.com>, <justcasino-pokies.net>, <just-nz.com>, <justcasinos.info>, <justcasino-play.com>, <casinojust.org>, <just-au.net>, <nz-justcasino.com>, and <justcasinonz.net> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc.; Spaceship, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED; CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; and GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc.; Spaceship, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED; CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; GoDaddy.com, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc.; Spaceship, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED; CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; and GoDaddy.com, 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 April 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 29, 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@justcasino-au.com, postmaster@justcasino-au.biz, postmaster@just-casino-win.com, postmaster@justcasino-pokies.net, postmaster@just-nz.com, postmaster@justcasinos.info, postmaster@justcasino-play.com, postmaster@casinojust.org, postmaster@just-au.net, postmaster@nz-justcasino.com, and postmaster@justcasinonz.net. Also on April 9, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 27, 2026.

 

On April 27, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.

 

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. In support of this allegation it states:

a)       Each and every domain name includes Complainant's JUSTCASINO trademark in its entirety, and each is used exclusively to host phishing websites that mimic the Complainant's original website and redirect users to competitors' websites. 

b)       The domain names demonstrate a clear pattern of coordinated registration. 

c)       The domain names demonstrate a coordinated geographical expansion strategy targeting Australian and New Zealand markets.

d)       All websites behind the domain names utilize identical design elements, including the Complainant's original creative images, logo implementations, and color palette.

e)       The contact information provided by the respondents contains multiple geographic impossibilities that expose the fabricated nature of the provided identities. 

f)       The contact information provided for some of the named registrants are linked to professional advertising agencies.

g)       Three of the disputed domain names redirect to the same competing casino website.

h)       Some of the named registrants have repeatedly appeared in multiple Forum proceedings brought by different complainants involving various trademarks.

 

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."

 

The Panel finds that allegations and (a), (c), (e), (f), and (h) above do not necessarily indicate that the domain names are under common control. The Panel does not agree with allegations (b), (d), and (g): the evidence presented by Complainant indicates that six of the resolving websites are different from the others (and from each other).

 

Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has not presented sufficient evidence to find that all the disputed domain names were registered by the same person or entity.

 

Under Forum's Supplemental Rule 4(c), the Panel must determine which domain names are commonly owned and elect which Respondent to proceed against, as a UDRP decision can proceed against only one Respondent. The Panel is then required to dismiss the Complaint in relation to the domain names not commonly owned by the chosen Respondent. 

 

Accordingly, the Panel will rule only on the <justcasino-pokies.net>, <justcasinos.info>, <casinojust.org>, <nz-justcasino.com>, and <justcasinonz.net> domain names, and it will dismiss, without prejudice, the complaint regarding the domain names <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasino-au.biz>, <just-casino-win.com>, <just-nz.com>, <justcasino-play.com>, and <just-au.net>. See Brian Renner v. Contactprivacy.com, FA 1335211 (Forum Aug. 26, 2010); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. M M / shanwang chen / feifei lin / HUA ZHANG / L H / Eddie Nash / Heather Brooker, FA 1973471 (Forum Dec. 17, 2021).

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY THEFT AND REDACTION REQUEST

In its Response (see below), the named Respondent for the domain name <just-casino-win.com> states that it has been the victim of identity theft and requests that its name be redacted from the instant decision. As Forum had not received any further response from the named Respondents, it proceeded with the Panel appointment.  The Panel has taken the following rules and precedent into account in making a determination on not redacting Respondent's identity.

 

According to Policy ¶ 4(j), "[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision." In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the respondents' personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft from becoming aligned with acts the actual registrants appeared to have sought to impute to the respondents.

 

However, according to Forum Supplemental Rule 15(b), "All requests pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j) and Rule 16(b) to have a portion of the decision redacted, must be made in the Complaint, the Response, or an Additional Submission that is submitted before the Panel's decision is published." (emphasis added).  Rule 1 defines "respondent" as "the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated;" and Forum Supplemental Rule 1(d) further defines "the holder of a domain-name registration" as "the single person or entity listed in the WHOIS registration information at the time of commencement." The Panel notes precedent which holds the registrar-confirmed registrant of a disputed domain (per the WHOIS at commencement of the proceeding) the proper respondent, notwithstanding the possibility that said respondent's identity was stolen.  See, e.g., Banco Bradesco S/A v. Gisele Moura Leite, D2014-0414 (WIPO Apr. 30, 2014). 

 

In the instant case, there has been a Response and a request for redaction. Consequently, the Panel finds that it is warranted to redact from the Panel's decision the named Respondent for the domain name <just-casino-win.com>.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that, in March 2023, it, together with Just Entertainment B.V., released its online casino platform under the JUSTCASINO brand operating on the domain name <justcasino.com>. Just Entertainment is incorporated under the laws of Curacao and owns the necessary international Curacao E-gaming license issued by Curaçao Gaming Control Board. Therefore, Complainant's operations of the JustCasino casino under Just Entertainment's Curaçao license is compliant with all applicable regulatory requirements. Complainant's website provides players from the EU with a wide diversity of online entertainment experience, including numerous slot games from world top providers and live casino games. Complainant's casino manages its own loyalty and jackpot programs, and marketing putting significant efforts in promoting the JUSTCASINO brand, which is now associated by the public with an enjoyable online gaming experience. In mid-2023, following the increased popularity of the JUSTCASINO brand among the EU players, Complainant decided to protect its brand name and logo by registering it as an EU trademark. After receiving a huge attention in the industry, from around February-March 2024 Complainant observed a great number of sites infringing on its trademark rights, exploiting its hard-won trust and goodwill. An unknown party, i.e. Respondent, has registered confusingly similar domain names to create clear-cut copies of Complainant's website. The main aim of such clones is to lure traffic from Complainant by confusing players to thinking that they reached Complainant's website. However, after users attempt to register an account with such unauthorized website, they are transferred to the website of one of the Complainant's competitors. The domain names listed in the Complainant are just some examples of numerous similar unauthorized copies of Complainant's website. According to WhoIs information, some of the disputed domain names were registered right after the "boom" in Complainant's JustCasino popularity, which started in March 2023, implying the actual knowledge by Respondent of Complainant's trademark application. Complainant asserts rights in the mark JUSTCASINO through its registration in the European Union on May 3, 2024, filing date June 9, 2023.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its JUSTCASINO mark because they incorporate the mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen, and/or reversing the terms of the mark, adding geographic terms, and/or generic/descriptive terms, together with a generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in its mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving websites display Complainant's mark, and purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. The resolving websites purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual/constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the JUSTCASINO mark.

 

B. Respondent

The named Respondent for the domain name <just-casino-win.com> states that it has been the victim of identity theft and requests that its name be redacted from the instant decision.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark JUSTCASINO and uses it to provide gambling services. The associated services were launched in March 2023.

 

Complainant registered the mark on May 3, 2024, filing date June 9, 2023.

 

The domain name <casinojust.org> was registered on June 9, 2023. The other registrations postdate the date on which Complainant established registered rights in its trademark.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving websites purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant; they display Complainant's mark.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The relevant date for the Complainant's mark is the filing date, see Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China v. jeonggon seo, FA 1591638 (Forum Jan. 16, 2015) (finding Complainant has rights in the LENOVO mark dating back to the February 20, 2003 filing date with the USPTO as the trademark application was ultimately successful); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant's rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO "date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent's registration").

 

The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's JUSTCASINO mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen, and/or reversing the terms of the mark, adding geographic terms, and/or generic/descriptive terms, together with a generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), such changes are not sufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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."); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark); see also Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("The [<morganstonley.com> and <morganstainley.com>] Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") '.com.'"). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

According to 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1"): "In some cases, in assessing the first element a panel may find that the broader case context (such as website content or fraudulent (phishing) emails trading off the complainant's reputation (in particular in the case of unregistered marks), or a pattern of multiple respondent domain names targeting the complainant's mark within the same proceeding), supports a finding of confusing similarity with the complainant's mark."

 

Here, Complainant presents evidence showing that the resolving websites contain elements likely intended to make consumers believe that Respondent's sites are somehow affiliated with Complainant. This supports the side-by-side comparison above.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has not been licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrants of the domain names as "Vasile-Ionut Crangan / Lead Total Limited / Eugene Gonzales / Derkan Klobs / my own company / Clara Cargano / BURES MOJMIR / Olexandr Ponomarenko / Valentyn Kobzev / Igor Vasilkovski / REDACTED / REDACTED". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving websites purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Previous Panels have found that use of a disputed domain name to offer goods or services in competition with those of a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use" where "Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The domain name <casinojust.org> was registered on the same day that Complainant acquired registered rights in its mark.

 

The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1") states under 3.8.2:

 

As an exception to the general proposition described above in 3.8.1 [where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant's trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent], in certain limited circumstances where the facts of the case establish that the respondent's intent in registering the domain name was to unfairly capitalize on the complainant's nascent (typically as yet unregistered) trademark rights, panels have been prepared to find that the respondent has acted in bad faith.

 

Such scenarios include registration of a domain name: (i) shortly before or after announcement of a corporate merger, (ii) further to the respondent's insider knowledge (e.g., a former employee), (iii) further to significant media attention (e.g., in connection with a product launch or prominent event), or (iv) following the complainant's filing of a trademark application.

 

Here, Complainant provides evidence showing that that the disputed domain name <casinojust.org> was registered further to significant media attention in connection with the launch of Complainant's JustCasino services. Indeed, Complainant's services were launched in March 2023, and the disputed domain names in question was registered in June 2023. See also the discussion of opportunistic bad faith below.

 

Respondent has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving websites purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Panels have held that registration and use of a disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to a competing website offering the same or similar goods or services demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website where it offered competing printer products); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving websites display Complainant's mark. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also 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."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

In addition, Respondent displays a pattern of bad faith registration of disputed domain names containing Complainant's JUSTCASINO mark. Registration of multiple domain names containing a complainant's mark can substantiate an argument that a respondent registered and uses a disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA 1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding that registration of several infringing domain names in a case satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Angie Arendt / DIAHOST .CO / keith mosley, FA 1789701 (Forum July 2, 2018) (finding that Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith and registration by registering multiple domain names that contain Complainant's famous CATERPILLAR mark); see also Radisson Hotels Internation, Inc. v. Yue Mei Wang / Wang Yue Mei aka Pei Jun Gan / Gan Pei Jun / Jun Yu He / He Jun Yu / Denliyan, FA 1615349 (Forum June 1, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's registration of the <radissonbluplazachongqing.com>, <radissonbluchongqingshapingba.com>, <radissonplazahoteltianjin.com>, and <radissonbluhotelshanghai.com> domain names, which all infringe on Complainant's mark, constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

Finally, on the balance of the evidence before it, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name <casinojust.org> opportunistically, because it registered it shortly after the public announcement of Complainant's JustCasino services. This constitutes bad faith registration and use. See GridPoint, Inc. v. Matt Giovanini, FA 1909399 (Forum Oct. 5, 2020) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), opportunistic bad faith may be demonstrated by a Respondent registering a disputed domain name that integrates a distinct or famous mark, around the time of a certain event that creates interest or value in the disputed domain name."); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. harshit dhingaun, FA 1619696 (Forum June 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the contested domain names within days after the announcement of Complainant's sponsorship of India Fashion Week, thus demonstrating opportunistic bad faith in the registration and subsequent use of the domains."). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) on this ground also. 

 

DECISION

The Panel dismisses, without prejudice, the Complaint against the <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasino-au.biz>, <just-casino-win.com>, <just-nz.com>, <justcasino-play.com>, and <just-au.net> domain names.

 

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy for the domain names <justcasino-pokies.net>, <justcasinos.info>, <casinojust.org>, <nz-justcasino.com>, and <justcasinonz.net>, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED for those domain names.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <justcasino-pokies.net>, <justcasinos.info>, <casinojust.org>, <nz-justcasino.com>, and <justcasinonz.net>, domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant and that the <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasino-au.biz>, <just-casino-win.com>, <just-nz.com>, <justcasino-play.com>, and <just-au.net> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: April 27, 2026