DECISION

 

Sandpiper International Holdings Limited v. Aggarwal Parv / Andrei Smirnov / Rafael Bartel / Ethan Konner / [REDACTED] / Andrei-Ovidiu Ionescu / Alex Brown / Dara Bulatova / YURY ZANCHENKO

Claim Number: FA2606002228671

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Sandpiper International Holdings Limited ("Complainant"), represented by Kamal Tserakhau of REVERA Polska sp. z o.o., Poland. Respondent is Aggarwal Parv / Andrei Smirnov / Rafael Bartel / Ethan Konner / [REDACTED] / Andrei-Ovidiu Ionescu / Alex Brown / Dara Bulatova / YURY ZANCHENKO ("Respondent"), Mutiple Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names listed in the complaint are <theclubhousecasino-ca.com>, <the-clubhousecasino.com>, <theclubhouse-casino.com>, <clubhouse.homes>, <casinoclubhouse.net>, <clubhousecasinologin.net>, <clubhousecasino2.com>, <theclubhouse.buzz>, <theclubhouse1.bond>, <1989clubhouse.com>, <misterclubhouse.com>, <casinoclub.house>, <casino-clubhouse.net>, <clubhousecasinoau.net> and <theclubhousecasino-au.com>, registered with Spaceship, Inc., NameCheap, Inc. and Name.com, Inc.

 

For the reasons given below, the Panel finds that the only relevant domain name for this case are <casinoclubhouse.net>, <casino-clubhouse.net>, <clubhousecasino2.com>, <clubhousecasinoau.net>, and <clubhousecasinologin.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 June 23, 2026; Forum received payment on June 23, 2026.

 

On June 24, 2026, Spaceship, Inc., NameCheap, Inc. and Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <theclubhousecasino-ca.com>, <the-clubhousecasino.com>, <theclubhouse-casino.com>, <clubhouse.homes>, <casinoclubhouse.net>, <clubhousecasinologin.net>, <clubhousecasino2.com>, <theclubhouse.buzz>, <theclubhouse1.bond>, <1989clubhouse.com>, <misterclubhouse.com>, <casinoclub.house>, <casino-clubhouse.net>, <clubhousecasinoau.net> and <theclubhousecasino-au.com> domain names are registered with Spaceship, Inc., NameCheap, Inc. and Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Spaceship, Inc., NameCheap, Inc. and Name.com, Inc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, Inc., NameCheap, Inc. and Name.com, 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 June 29, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 20, 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@theclubhousecasino-ca.com, postmaster@the-clubhousecasino.com, postmaster@theclubhouse-casino.com, postmaster@clubhouse.homes, postmaster@casinoclubhouse.net, postmaster@clubhousecasinologin.net, postmaster@clubhousecasino2.com, postmaster@theclubhouse.buzz, postmaster@theclubhouse1.bond, postmaster@1989clubhouse.com, postmaster@misterclubhouse.com, postmaster@casinoclub.house, postmaster@casino-clubhouse.net, postmaster@clubhousecasinoau.net, postmaster@theclubhousecasino-au.com. Also on June 29, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. One of the named registrants did however send an email to Forum, see below.

 

On July 21, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request 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. 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

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 of the fifteen domain names incorporates Complainant's THE CLUBHOUSE CASINO trademark in its entirety or with minor typographical, geographic, or descriptive modifications;

b)       each domain name is used exclusively to host websites that replicate Complainant's legitimate website and redirect users to competing online casino platforms;

c)       all websites associated with the domain names utilize identical design elements, including Complainant's original creative images, logo implementations, and color palette, and operate through an identical redirect mechanism;

d)       the domain names demonstrate a clear pattern of coordinated registration within a narrow timeframe spanning from September 2025 through November 2025;

e)        all fifteen domain names share TLS certificates issued by the same certificate authority, Google Trust Services (WE1), within a compressed period of approximately six weeks between 11 May 2026 and 18 June 2026;

f)       the contact information provided by the registrants contains multiple indicia of falsification;

g)       several of the named registrants are known actors who have appeared as respondents in prior UDRP proceedings brought by different complainants, in particular Dara Bulatova, Alex Brown, Aggarwal Parv, and YURY ZANCHENKO have been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in prior UDRP proceedings involving multiple domain names;

h)       all fifteen domain names are registered through either Spaceship, Inc. or NAMECHEAP INC, and a substantial number deploy an identical privacy shielding arrangement.

 

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 (a) and (d)-(h) above do not necessarily indicate that the domain names are under common control. The Panel does not agree with allegations (b) and (c): the evidence presented by Complainant indicates that many of the resolving websites are different.

 

Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has not presented sufficient evidence to find that both 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 <casinoclubhouse.net>, <casino-clubhouse.net>, <clubhousecasino2.com>, <clubhousecasinoau.net>, and <clubhousecasinologin.net> domain names, which are all registered by the same registrant (see below), and it will dismiss, without prejudice, the complaint regarding the domain names <theclubhousecasino-ca.com>, <the-clubhousecasino.com>, <theclubhouse-casino.com>, <clubhouse.homes>, <theclubhouse.buzz>, <theclubhouse1.bond>, <1989clubhouse.com>, <misterclubhouse.com>, <casinoclub.house>, and <theclubhousecasino-au.com>. 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

The named registrant of the domain names relevant for this case states that he is not connected to the domain names and should not be involved in the instant proceeding, see below.

 

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 no request in the Complaint to redact any portion of the decision, however, the named registrant of the domain names relevant for this case has requested not to be involved. The Panel interprets that request as a request for redaction of that registrant's name. Consequently, the Panel finds that it is warranted to redact that registrant's name from the Panel's decision,

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is a company incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. In 2021, the Complainant, together with its partner Novatrix SRL (a Costa Rica operating under E-gaming license No. 0000002 issued by the Tobique Gaming Commission), launched THE CLUBHOUSE CASINO online casino platform at <theclubhousecasino.com>. That website provides players with online entertainment services, including slot games from leading providers and live casino games, under the THE CLUBHOUSE CASINO brand. Following the platform's launch, THE CLUBHOUSE CASINO brand gained substantial public recognition. Google Trends data confirms that searches for both the "The ClubHouse Casino" and "ClubHouse Casino" terms have grown consistently since the platform's launch, with the "ClubHouse Casino" term in particular showing a sustained upward trend across all categories and in the "Games" category specifically, with peak interest observed in late 2025. Complainant registered THE CLUBHOUSE CASINO mark in the European Union on May 20, 2026. Complainant also asserts common law rights in the mark THE CLUBHOUSE CASINO.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its THE CLUBHOUSE CASINO mark because they all incorporate the dominant portion CLUBHOUSE CASINO of the mark, merely reversing the words, and/or adding a hyphen and/or a generic/descriptive or geographic term, together with a generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. 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 replicate the design, layout, and branding of the Complainant's website to create the false impression that users have reached Complainant's platform. When a user attempts to interact with any such website, they are redirected to competing online casino services.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. The resolving websites impersonate Complainant and offer competing services. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark.

 

B. Respondent

In its email to Forum on July 15, 2026, the named registrant of the domain names relevant for this case states, in pertinent part: "I am not connected to any of these domain names so should in no way be involved."

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has common law rights in the mark THE CLUBHOUSE CASINO predating the registration of the disputed domain names and uses it to operate an online gambling platform.

 

The disputed domain names were registered in 2025.

 

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

 

The resolving websites impersonate Complainant, displaying its distinctive logo and referring to it; they offer services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

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 3.1 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 asserts common law rights in its THE CLUBHOUSE CASINO mark. Common law rights are sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration if a complainant can establish common law rights in its mark). Common law rights may be established through evidence of secondary meaning in the mark such as longstanding use, evidence of an identical domain name, media recognition, and promotional material and advertising. See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, 1738263 (Forum July 27, 2017) (finding that Complainant had established its common law rights in the MARQUETTE GOLF CLUB mark with evidence of secondary meaning, including "longstanding use; evidence of holding an identical domain name; media recognition; and promotional material/advertising."). Here, Complainant registered the domain name <theclubhousecasino.com> in 2021, and used it to market and to provide gambling services well before the registration of the disputed domain names. Further, Complainant used its THE CLUBHOUSE CASINO mark in various promotional and advertising materials. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant established common law rights in its THE CLUBHOUSE CASINO mark, with rights predating the first registration of the disputed domain names.

 

The disputed domain names each incorporate the dominant portion CLUBHOUSE CASINO of Complainant's THE CLUBHOUSE CASINO mark, merely reversing the words, and/or adding a hyphen and/or a generic/descriptive or geographic term, together with a generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic terms and/or relevant or meaningless letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD ".com." These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."); see also 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 Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5, FA 176541 (Forum Sept. 23, 2003) ("The addition of a hyphen to Complainant's mark does not create a distinct characteristic capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis."). 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 contains elements likely intended to make consumers believe that Respondent's site is somehow affiliated with Complainant. This supports the side-by-side comparison above.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as "[REDACTED]". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving websites impersonate Complainant. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Edible Communities v. Thoreau,  FA 1158554 (Forum Apr. 16, 2008) ("[R]espondent's use of the disputed domain name [<theedibleaustin.com>] to pass itself off as [c]omplainant shows that [r]espondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) as well as Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Digg v. Digg , FA 1220833 (Forum Oct. 9, 2008) (finding no legitimate interest in respondent's use of the domain name <digg-inc.com> because "[r]espondent is attempting to pass itself off as [c]omplainant" and such "actions do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). 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 per 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

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 impersonate Complainant. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See American International Group, Inc. v. Walter Busby d/b/a AIG Mergers and Acquisitions, FA 0156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (the resolving website gave every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Russell Miranda, FA 0993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (Respondent is implying an affiliation with Complainant, and consumers seeking Complainant's products and services may become confused when encountering Respondent's website). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving websites display Complainant's logo and refer to Complainant. 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 name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Finally, as noted above, there has been identity theft. Therefore the WHOIS information is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept., 2010 ) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also.

 

DECISION

The Panel dismisses, without prejudice, the Complaint against the <theclubhousecasino-ca.com>, <the-clubhousecasino.com>, <theclubhouse-casino.com>, <clubhouse.homes>, <theclubhouse.buzz>, <theclubhouse1.bond>, <1989clubhouse.com>, <misterclubhouse.com>, <casinoclub.house>, and <theclubhousecasino-au.com> domain names.

 

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy for the domain names <casinoclubhouse.net>, <casino-clubhouse.net>, <clubhousecasino2.com>, <clubhousecasinoau.net>, and <clubhousecasinologin.net>, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED for those domain name.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <casinoclubhouse.net>, <casino-clubhouse.net>, <clubhousecasino2.com>, <clubhousecasinoau.net>, and <clubhousecasinologin.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant and that the domain names <theclubhousecasino-ca.com>, <the-clubhousecasino.com>, <theclubhouse-casino.com>, <clubhouse.homes>, <theclubhouse.buzz>, <theclubhouse1.bond>, <1989clubhouse.com>, <misterclubhouse.com>, <casinoclub.house>, and <theclubhousecasino-au.com> REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: July 21, 2026