DECISION

 

Razor Trade Corporation v. Website Website / HELGA BYRNE / My Site / Clara Cargano / Eugene Gonzales / Serhii Surzhyk / Vita Stasiuk / Darlene Rocha Passos / Daryna Shkelebei

Claim Number: FA2608002238732

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Razor Trade Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Kamal Tserakhau of REVERA Polska sp. z o.o., Poland. Respondent is Website Website / HELGA BYRNE / My Site / Clara Cargano / Eugene Gonzales / Serhii Surzhyk / Vita Stasiuk / Darlene Rocha Passos / Daryna Shkelebei ("Respondent"), represented by Louis Bernard, France.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <justcasinoaus.org>, <justcasino-at.net>, <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasinogames.com>, <justpokiescasino.com>, <justcasino.pro>, <casinojust-kuwait.com>, and <justcasino.games>, registered with Dynadot Inc; Spaceship, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; NameCheap, Inc.; and GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 11, 2026; Forum received payment on August 11, 2026.

 

On Aug 11, 2026; Aug 12, 2026; Aug 13, 2026, Dynadot Inc; Spaceship, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; NameCheap, Inc.; and GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <justcasinoaus.org>, <justcasino-at.net>, <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasinogames.com>, <justpokiescasino.com>, <justcasino.pro>, <casinojust-kuwait.com>, and <justcasino.games> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc; Spaceship, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; NameCheap, Inc.; and GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc; Spaceship, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; NameCheap, Inc.; and GoDaddy.com, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc; Spaceship, Inc.; URL Solutions, Inc.; NameCheap, Inc.; 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 August 25, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 14, 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@justcasinoaus.org, postmaster@justcasino-at.net, postmaster@justcasino-au.com, postmaster@justcasinogames.com, postmaster@justpokiescasino.com, postmaster@justcasino.pro, postmaster@casinojust-kuwait.com, and postmaster@justcasino.games. Also on August 25, 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 September 7, 2026.

 

On September 8, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that "[t]he complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder."  Here, Complainant provides extensive evidence showing: 1. The disputed domain names use similar naming conventions; 2. There are several common registrars and the disputed domain names are registered in discernible batches;  3. The registrant information for the disputed domain names is false on several counts;  4. Several of the nominal registrants of the disputed domain names have lost UDRP cases against Complainant;  5. The disputed domain names resolve to the same or similar content, also similar to Complainant's website. The Panel also notes that the named Respondents did not object to consolidating the UDRP cases on the disputed domain names. The Panel thus determines that the listed registrant names are aliases for the same person or entity and will refer to them jointly as "Respondent". See Eli Lilly and Company v. Private Registration, WhoisGuardService.com, D2016-1737 (WIPO Oct. 11, 2016) (consolidation found to be fair and equitable where "the respondent has the opportunity to make its submissions on the validity of the consolidation together with its substantive arguments. … The Respondent had the opportunity but did not respond to the Complaint").

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.       Respondent's <justcasinoaus.org>, <justcasino-at.net>, <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasinogames.com>, <justpokiescasino.com>, <justcasino.pro>, <casinojust-kuwait.com>, and <justcasino.games> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's JUST CASINO mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <justcasinoaus.org>, <justcasino-at.net>, <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasinogames.com>, <justpokiescasino.com>, <justcasino.pro>, <casinojust-kuwait.com>, and <justcasino.games> domain names.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <justcasinoaus.org>, <justcasino-at.net>, <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasinogames.com>, <justpokiescasino.com>, <justcasino.pro>, <casinojust-kuwait.com>, and <justcasino.games> domain names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

1.       Respondent's <casinojust-kuwait.com> domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant's JUST CASINO mark.

 

2.       Respondent does have any rights or legitimate interests in the <casinojust-kuwait.com> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent did not register and does not use the <casinojust-kuwait.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

C. Complainant's Additional Submission

1.       Respondent does not deny that the disputed domain names are registered by the same person or entity.

 

2.       Repsondent only denies Complainant's allegations regarding the <casinojust-kuwait.com> domain name.

 

3.       Repsondent does not provide arguments or proof to address Complainant's allegations regarding <casinojust-kuwait.com>.

 

4.       Respondent attempts to reserve the right to provide argument and/or proof, which is not a response to Complainant's allegations.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant provides online games and services and holds a registration for the JUST CASINO logo mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office ("EUIPO") (No. 018886269, filed September 6, 2023, and registered March 5, 2024).  In March of 2023, Complainant launched its online platform under the brand "JustCasino" at <justcasino.com>.

 

Respondent registered the <justcasinoaus.org>, <justcasino-at.net>, <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasinogames.com>, <justpokiescasino.com>, <justcasino.pro>, <casinojust-kuwait.com>, and <justcasino.games> domain names between August of 2023 and June of 2026, and uses them to compete with Complainant.  Specifically, Respondent registered <casinojust-kuwait.com> on November 18, 2025, in order to compete with 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the JUST CASINO mark based upon the registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant's registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).  Complainant's rights were well-established when Respondent registered <casinojust-kuwait.com>, the only domain name that Respondent addressed.

 

Respondent's <justcasinoaus.org>, <justcasino-at.net>, <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasinogames.com>, <justpokiescasino.com>, <justcasino.pro>, <casinojust-kuwait.com>, and <justcasino.games> domain names all use Complainant's JUST CASINO mark in some combination and add generic words or letters in all but one case, a hyphen in some cases, and a top-level domain. These changes do not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA17738958 (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.")   Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <justcasinoaus.org>, <justcasino-at.net>, <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasinogames.com>, <justpokiescasino.com>, <justcasino.pro>, <casinojust-kuwait.com>, and <justcasino.games> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's JUST CASINO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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.").  The Panel finds that Complainant has presented its prima facie case, with ample evidence, on all of the disputed domain names and thus has met its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). In its Response, Respondent did not provide any objection, argument or evidence on this element of the Policy as it pertains to the <justcasinoaus.org>, <justcasino-at.net>, <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasinogames.com>, <justpokiescasino.com>, <justcasino.pro>, and <justcasino.games> domain names and cannot meet its burden. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <justcasinoaus.org>, <justcasino-at.net>, <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasinogames.com>, <justpokiescasino.com>, <justcasino.pro>, and <justcasino.games> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Regarding <casinojust-kuwait.com>, the only one addressed at all by Respondent, Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <casinojust-kuwait.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's JUST CASINO mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Helga Byrne". Respondent provides no evidence on this element of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that there is no evidence in the record to support the notion that Respondent is commonly known by the <casinojust-kuwait.com> domain name, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"); see also Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent also fails to use the <casinojust-kuwait.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the domain name to divert users to its competing website. Complainant provides screenshots showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer services in competition with Complainant. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) ("Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.").  

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses or used all of the dispute domain names, including <casinojust-kuwait.com>, in bad faith to attract Internet traffic to Respondent's competing website. Respondent provides no evidence on this element of the Policy. Using a disputed domain name to divert traffic to a competing site evinces bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Adobe Inc. v. Md. Mizanur Rahmani, FA 1968753 (Forum Nov. 5, 2021) (finding bad faith where respondent was taking predatory advantage of complainant's mark which was readily identifiable in the domain name to divert Internet traffic to respondent's competing website). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <justcasinoaus.org>, <justcasino-at.net>, <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasinogames.com>, <justpokiescasino.com>, <justcasino.pro>, <casinojust-kuwait.com>, and <justcasino.games> domain names with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the JUST CASINO mark. The Panel agrees, noting that Respondent uses Complainant's mark to directly compete with Complainant.  Respondent provides no evidence on this element of the Policy. The Panel thus finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <justcasinoaus.org>, <justcasino-at.net>, <justcasino-au.com>, <justcasinogames.com>, <justpokiescasino.com>, <justcasino.pro>, <casinojust-kuwait.com>, and <justcasino.games> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: September 10, 2026