Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107981

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks:

• European Union trademark "Brazino777" no. 018763876, filed on 16 September 2022 and registered since 19 January 2023 in classes 9 and 41;
• International trademark "Brazino777" no. 1699932, registered since 13 October 2022 in classes 9 and 41.

The Complainant's above-mentioned rights are hereinafter collectively referred to as the BRAZINO777 Trademark.

The Complainant is a company domiciled in Cyprus and, since 2019, has operated an online platform under the BRAZINO777 Trademark at the domain name <brazino777.com>, providing online gaming, gambling, and sports betting services to users worldwide.

The disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent on 1 July 2025. According to the Registrar's verification, the Respondent is an individual residing in China. However, the CAC was unable to deliver the Notice of Complaint by postal service as the address provided by the Respondent to the Registrar at the time of registration appears to be non-existent.

The disputed domain names resolve to websites offering online gaming, gambling, and sports betting services.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements to succeed in the administrative proceeding:

(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

I. THE COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS AND THE CONFUSING SIMILARITY OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES TO THE COMPLAINANT'S MARK

The Complainant has demonstrated rights in the BRAZINO777 Trademark.

Each of the disputed domain names incorporates the element "BRAZINO777" in its entirety, followed by a hyphen and the generic term "entrar" (meaning "enter" in Portuguese and Spanish) or "login" respectively, and ending with the ".org" top-level domain (TLD). The BRAZINO777 Trademark is therefore clearly recognizable within both disputed domain names.

Under the UDRP, the test for identity or confusing similarity is a straightforward comparison between the disputed domain name and the relevant trademark. Where a domain name contains a complainant's mark in its entirety, or where the mark constitutes a dominant and recognizable element of the domain name, confusing similarity is generally established for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The addition of generic, descriptive, or otherwise non-distinctive terms—such as "entrar" or "login"—does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Likewise, the TLD, in this case ".org", is disregarded as a standard technical requirement of registration.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's BRAZINO777 Trademark. The Complainant has therefore satisfied the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

II. THE RESPONDENT'S LACK OF RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Once a prima facie case is established, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests.

The Complainant asserts that it has no relationship whatsoever with the Respondent. The Respondent has never been authorised, expressly or impliedly, by the Complainant to use the BRAZINO777 Trademark or to register or use the disputed domain names.

The Respondent has been identified by the Registrar as huang yunpeng, residing in China. There is no evidence that the Respondent, whether as an individual, business, or other organisation, has been commonly known by the disputed domain names or has acquired any rights in a trademark or trade name corresponding to them. Moreover, the physical address provided by the Respondent appears to be non-existent, suggesting that false contact details may have been provided at the time of registration.

The disputed domain names, registered on 1 July 2025, incorporate the BRAZINO777 Trademark in its entirety together with generic terms, and are thus confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.

UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation. The mere addition of descriptive, geographic, pejorative, or otherwise non-distinctive terms does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity or establish rights or legitimate interests. Such a composition does not normally constitute fair use.

Furthermore, the disputed domain names resolve to websites offering online gaming, gambling, and sports betting services, which directly compete with the Complainant's offerings. Such use is commercial in nature and seeks to take unfair advantage of the reputation of the BRAZINO777 Trademark. It cannot be regarded as a bona fide offering of goods or services.

There is no indication that, prior to notice of the dispute, the Respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Nor is there any evidence of legitimate non-commercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the BRAZINO777 Trademark.

The Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case. The Respondent has not submitted a Response and has failed to rebut the Complainant’s assertions or demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

III. THE REGISTRATION AND THE USE OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES IN BAD FAITH

The Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated that it holds rights in the BRAZINO777 Trademark, which predate the registration of the disputed domain names.

The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's BRAZINO777 Trademark, as they incorporate the mark in its entirety. The addition of the generic terms "entrar" and "login" and the ".org" TLD (being a mere technical requirement for domain name registration) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. UDRP panels have consistently held that the addition of descriptive or generic terms to a complainant's trademark does not avoid such a finding.

Given the distinctiveness of the BRAZINO777 Trademark and its prior use, it is implausible that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names by coincidence or without knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. On the contrary, the circumstances indicate an intention to target the Complainant's mark and divert Internet traffic away from its legitimate website.

The Respondent's use of the disputed domain names confirms this finding. The domain names resolve to websites offering online gaming, gambling, and sports betting services, directly competing with the Complainant's services. This evidence shows that the Respondent was aware of the BRAZINO777 Trademark and sought to mislead users into believing that the websites are operated, affiliated with, or endorsed by the Complainant.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. Moreover, by using the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his or her websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his or her websites or of the products or services offered thereon, in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Additionally, the CAC has confirmed that the physical address provided by the Respondent does not exist. The provision of false contact details at the time of registration constitutes a breach of the registration agreement and further supports a finding of bad faith.

In light of the above, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.