{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107711",
    "time_of_filling": "2025-06-27 14:13:56",
    "domain_names": [
        "melbetar.net",
        "melbetbd.org "
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Batnesto Ltd. "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Karel Sindelka (Sindelka & Lachmannová advokáti s.r.o.)",
    "respondent": [
        "Denys  Lobusov ",
        "Denys  Lobusov "
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>The Complainant, Batnesto Ltd, is a company registered in Cyprus, who is the holder of the domain name &lt;melbet.com&gt;. The website www.melbet.com is operated by Pelican Entertainment B.V. as a License holder of the Cura&ccedil;ao eGaming License. The relationship between the Complainant and Pelican Entertainment B.V. is attested by the domain name lease agreement. Melbet is the name of the online gaming and casino platform operated since 2012 and currently has over 400,000 daily users worldwide. The Melbet sportsbook includes over 1,000 daily events. Melbet is one of the largest places to bet on sports around the world. The disputed domain names were registered as follows: &lt;melbetbd.org&gt; on November 24, 2021, and &lt;melbetar.net&gt; on July 22, 2024. Previous UDRP panels have confirmed that MELBET trademark is well-known.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p><br \/>The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it. <br \/>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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).<\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "bad_faith": "<p>The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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).<\/p>",
    "procedural_factors": "<div>\n<p>The Complainant provided the consolidation request; however, the Panel is of the view that this request is redundant because the materials of the case clearly demonstrates that both disputed domain names are evidently registered by the same person &ndash; Respondent Denys Lobusov. The Panel does not see any ambiguity regarding the Respondent&rsquo;s identity. The question whether the Respondent Denys Lobusov in respect of one disputed domain name (&lt;melbetar.net&gt;) might be &ldquo;some other&rdquo; Denys Lobusov in respect of other disputed domain name (&lt;melbetbd.org&gt;) because the e-mail addresses and contact addresses are different seems to be irrelevant because Denys Lobusov lives in the same city (Dnipro, Ukraine), uses the same telephone number and, what is the most important, does not deny himself that he is the sole holder of both disputed domain names (namely, his request of July 28, 2025, to grant him additional days to provide Response to the Complaint shows he has properly familiarised himself with the Complaint). Therefore, the Panel will not decide regarding the consolidation request because there is no material and procedural basis for such decision described in the Rules (specifically, Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules is intended for the situations when the disputed domain names are registered by different respondents or separate complaints were filed initially and one party asks to merge them into a single case or there is at least some reasonable ambiguity about whether the respondents are in fact the same person).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>In conclusion, 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.&nbsp;<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Darius Sauliūnas"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-08-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the trademark MELBET in several jurisdictions, for instance, Ugandan figurative trademark (Reg. No. 2020\/067008), filed on January 8, 2020, and registered on July 22, 2020, for the services in Class 41, namely, for &ldquo;sports betting and casino&rdquo;.&nbsp;<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "melbetar.net": "TRANSFERRED",
        "melbetbd.org ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}