Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107967

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

The Complainant is the registered owner of many trademarks for Brazino777, e.g. European Union trademark registration No. 018763876, registered on 19/01/2023 for goods and services in classes 9 and 41.

It results from the Complainant’s undisputed allegations that it is active through the official website < brazino777.com >, offering online gaming, gambling and betting services. 

The disputed domain name < brazino7770.com > was registered on 20.06.2025. Furthermore, the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant proves that the disputed domain name resolves to a website allegedly providing and advertising online casino services (i.e. services in the Complainant’s area of activity), displaying without authorization the Complainant’s trademark in the website and on the browser designation.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name 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 name is 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 name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is 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.

1. Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the complainant must establish rights in a trademark or service mark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights.

It results from the evidence provided, that the Complainant is the registered owner of various Brazino777 trademarks.

Prior UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 1.7. This Panel shares this view and notes that the Complainant’s registered trademark Brazino777 is fully included in the disputed domain name.

In addition, it is the view of this Panel that the addition of the numeral “0” in the disputed domain name results to be a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, and cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark since the disputed domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark (see WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.9).

Finally, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” of the disputed domain name is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (see WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.11.1).

In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights.

2. Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must secondly establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be proved, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.

In the Panel’s view, based on the undisputed allegations stated above, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that none of these circumstances are found in the case at hand and, therefore, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

According to the Complaint, which has remained unchallenged, the Complainant has no relationship in any way with the Respondents and did, in particular, not authorize the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademark Brazino777, e.g. by registering the disputed domain name, comprising said trademark entirely.

Furthermore, the Panel notes that there is no evidence showing that the Respondents might be commonly known by the disputed domain name in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is clearly constituted by the Complainant’s registered trademark and the addition of the numeral “0” (being a typosquatting of Complainant’s trademark). The Panel finds that employing a misspelling in this way signals an intention on the part of the Respondent to confuse users seeking or expecting the complainant.  The Panel finds it most likely that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain. This is also confirmed by the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, allegedly providing and advertising services in the Complainant’s area of activity (i.e. online casino services), displaying without authorization the Complainant’s trademark.

It is acknowledged that once the Panel finds a prima facie case is made by a complainant, the burden of production under the second element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.1). Since the Respondent in the case at hand failed to come forward with any allegations or evidence, this Panel finds, in the circumstances of this case, that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

3. According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must thirdly establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy indicates that certain circumstances specified in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy may, “in particular but without limitation”, be evidence of the disputed domain name’s registration and use in bad faith. One of these circumstances is that the Respondent by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).

It is the view of this Panel that these circumstances are met in the case at hand.

It results from the Complainant’s documented allegations that the disputed domain name < brazino7770.com > is a typosquatting of Complainant’s trademark “Brazino777” and of the domain name used for its official website < brazino777.com >. In addition, the disputed domain name resolves to a website allegedly advertising and offering services in the Complainant’s area of activity, displaying without authorization the Complainant’s trademark.

For the Panel, it is therefore evident that the Respondent knew the Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Consequently, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent knew that the disputed domain name included the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.

Finally, the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name’s registration and use confirm the findings that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.2.1):

(i) the nature of the disputed domain names (i.e. typosquatting);

(ii) the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolved (allegedly advertising and offering services in the Complainant’s area of activity, displaying without authorization the Complainant’s trademark;

(iii) a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the Respondent's choice of the disputed domain name;

(iv) the Respondent concealing its identity through a privacy service and the use of false contact details to hide the registrant’s identity (in fact the CAC was not able to send the written notice to the Respondent as the address provided by the Registrar in Registrar verification: „HongKong. 999077, xiang han“ does not exist. The postal service provider was not able to deliver a written notice to such address).

In light of the above the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and are being used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.