{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108919",
    "time_of_filling": "2026-08-11 21:16:18",
    "domain_names": [
        "casino-circus.co.nl",
        "circuscasino.co.com",
        "circuscasinos.co.nl"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Slanařová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Circus Belgium SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Mr Philippe Partoune (COGITUS SRL)",
    "respondent": [
        "Pablo Navarro Garcia",
        "Max Koselev",
        "Vincent Mathot (Digital Innov'Action inc.)"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><strong>A<\/strong>.&nbsp;<strong>Procedural History<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complaint was originally filed in respect of five disputed domain names registered in the names of five nominally different Respondents. The Complainant requested consolidation in a single proceeding.<\/p>\n<p>Following Registrar verification, the Complainant submitted supplemental observations in support of consolidation.<\/p>\n<p>During the proceeding, the Respondents corresponding to &lt;circus-casino.co.com&gt; and &lt;casinocircus.co.nl&gt; entered into settlement with the Complainant. Those domain names were transferred to the Complainant and ceased to be the subject of this proceeding.<\/p>\n<p>The proceeding accordingly continued in respect of the three remaining disputed domain names and Respondents.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>On 20 September 2026, the Panel issued Procedural Order No.1 (\"PO1\"), inviting further submissions concerning consolidation in light of the partial settlement. The Complainant was afforded until 23 September 2026 to submit its observations and the Respondents until 25 September 2026 to respond.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant submitted its observations within the prescribed time, maintaining its request for consolidation. No Respondent submitted any observations by the applicable deadline.<\/p>\n<p>The issue of consolidation is addressed further under Procedural Factors below.<\/p>\n<p><strong>B<\/strong>.<strong> Complainant<\/strong>'<strong>s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant is a Belgian company operating in the gambling and gaming sector under the CIRCUS brand.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that its CIRCUS-branded online platform in the Netherlands is operated through BETCA B.V. at &lt;circus.nl&gt; under a Dutch gambling licence.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names target its CIRCUS Marks and online gambling activities. It further submits that the corresponding websites reproduce the CIRCUS branding and information concerning operators, licences and regulatory arrangements associated with its business, thereby creating the appearance of official or authorised CIRCUS websites.<\/p>\n<p>According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the websites have been used to direct Internet users to third-party gambling operators unrelated to the Complainant.<\/p>\n<p><strong>C<\/strong>. <strong>Respondents<\/strong>'<strong> Position<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response was filed by any Respondent. Nor did any Respondent submit observations in response to PO1.<\/p>\n<p><strong>D<\/strong>. <strong>Disputed Domain Names<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain names were registered between 11 May and 16 June 2026.<\/p>\n<p>The Registrar verifications disclosed three different registrants:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Pablo Navarro Garcia - &lt;casino-circus.co.nl&gt;, registered on 8 June 2026;<\/li>\n<li>Max Koselev - &lt;circuscasino.co.com&gt;, registered on 11 May 2026; and<\/li>\n<li>Vincent Mathot \/ Digital Innov&rsquo;Action inc. - &lt;circuscasinos.co.nl&gt;, registered on 16 June 2026.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The respective registrant addresses are stated to be in Spain, Estonia and Canada. Each registrant supplied a telephone number using the Ukrainian international country code +380.<\/p>\n<p>The evidence shows that the corresponding websites reproduced CIRCUS branding and presented themselves as CIRCUS-branded gambling websites. Calls to action on the websites directed Internet users to third-party gambling operators.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain names &lt;casino-circus.co.nl&gt;, &lt;circuscasino.co.com&gt; and &lt;circuscasinos.co.nl&gt; <span>(the \"disputed domain names\").<\/span><\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p><strong>A<\/strong>.<strong> Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>A<\/strong>.<strong>1 The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant relies on its registered rights in the CIRCUS and CIRCUS CASINO trade marks and that each disputed domain name incorporates the CIRCUS trade mark together with \"casino\" or \"casinos\". The differences between the disputed domain names consist principally of hyphenation, pluralisation or reversal of word order and, in the Complainant's case, do not prevent the CIRCUS trade mark from remaining recognisable. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>A<\/strong>.<strong>2 <\/strong><strong>The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Respondents are not affiliated with the Complainant and have never been authorised to use the CIRCUS Marks. The Complainant contends that there is no evidence that any Respondent is commonly known by any disputed domain name or owns any corresponding right.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant submits that the websites reproduce CIRCUS branding and information concerning its business and regulatory arrangements so as to create the appearance of official or authorised CIRCUS gambling websites, while directing Internet users to unrelated third-party gambling operators for commercial purposes.<\/p>\n<p><strong>A<\/strong>.<strong>3 <\/strong><strong>The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the Respondents registered the disputed domain names with knowledge of, and an intention to target, the Complainant and its CIRCUS Marks.<\/p>\n<p>It relies upon the composition of the disputed domain names and the content and use of the corresponding websites, which it submits demonstrate specific knowledge of the Complainant and intentionally create confusion in order to divert Internet users to unrelated gambling operators for commercial gain.<\/p>\n<p><strong>A<\/strong>.<strong>4 Consolidation <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant requests consolidation pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules.<\/p>\n<p>Following PO1, the Complainant maintained the request and relied principally upon:<\/p>\n<p>(a) the use by all three nominal Respondents of Ukrainian +380 telephone numbers despite addresses in Spain, Estonia and Canada;<\/p>\n<p>(b) registration of the disputed domain names within 36 days and their closely related CIRCUS\/CASINO naming pattern;<\/p>\n<p>(c) anomalies or inconsistencies in the disclosed registrant information; and<\/p>\n<p>(d) the materially similar nature and commercial function of the corresponding websites, including their reproduction of CIRCUS branding and redirection of Internet users to third-party gambling operators.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant acknowledges that the websites are not identical and redirect to different operators, but submits that the evidence considered cumulatively establishes common control.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant further submits that consolidation would be fair and equitable and procedurally efficient.<\/p>\n<p><strong>A<\/strong>.<strong>5 Relief sought <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n<p><strong>B<\/strong>. <strong>Respondents<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response was filed. Nor did the Respondents make any submission in response to PO1.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel therefore proceeds on the basis of the evidence before it and may draw such inferences from the Respondents&rsquo; default as it considers appropriate under the UDRP Rules. The Respondents' failure to participate does not relieve the Complainant of its burden of establishing each element of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p>The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>",
    "bad_faith": "<p>The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>",
    "procedural_factors": "<p><strong>1<\/strong>. <strong>Consolidation<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Following settlement and transfer of two of the five domain names originally comprised in the Complaint, the proceeding continues against three nominal Respondents in respect of the three disputed domain names.<\/p>\n<p>Paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules confers upon the Panel discretion to consolidate multiple domain name disputes. In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, panels generally consider whether the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control and whether consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency may also be taken into account.<\/p>\n<p>Having considered the evidence as a whole, the Panel is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the three disputed domain names are subject to common control.<\/p>\n<p>First, all three nominal Respondents supplied telephone numbers using the Ukrainian international country code +380, notwithstanding stated addresses in Spain, Estonia and Canada. While that circumstance would carry little weight in isolation, its occurrence across all three nominally unrelated registrants is a relevant correlation.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the disputed domain names were registered within 36 days and follow a highly specific naming pattern. Each combines CIRCUS and CASINO\/CASINOS, differing essentially only by word order, hyphenation or pluralisation.<\/p>\n<p>Third, and more significantly, each corresponding website reproduces CIRCUS branding, presents itself as a CIRCUS-branded gambling website, uses materially similar categories of promotional and regulatory content and directs Internet users to a third-party gambling operator.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel has taken into account that the websites are not identical, the disputed domain names do not all share the same Registrar, and the websites redirect to different third-party gambling operators. Those differences do not, however, outweigh the cumulative evidence of common control. The apparent irregularities in the registrant information provide some additional support for that inference, although the Panel does not regard them as independently establishing common control.<\/p>\n<p>Taken as a whole, the evidence is sufficient to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the disputed domain names and corresponding websites are subject to common control.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel is further satisfied that consolidation is fair and equitable to the Parties and promotes procedural efficiency. The claims concern the same Complainant and trade marks, closely related domain names and materially similar conduct. Each Respondent was afforded an opportunity to participate and, specifically, to address consolidation following PO1. None objected or otherwise responded.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, the Panel grants the Complainant&rsquo;s request for consolidation and refers below to the three Respondents collectively as the \"Respondent\".<\/p>\n<p><strong>2<\/strong>.<strong> Miscellaneous<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP Policy, the UDRP Rules and the CAC Supplemental Rules have been met and that there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision. &nbsp;<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Gustavo Moser"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-09-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant, Circus Belgium S.A., is the proprietor of numerous registrations for trade marks consisting of or incorporating CIRCUS, including:<\/p>\n<p>&bull; Benelux CIRCUS trade mark registration no. 615084, registered on 1 April 1998; and<\/p>\n<p>&bull; European Union CIRCUS CASINO trade mark registration no. 006071914, registered on 23 October 2008.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant also owns the domain names &lt;circus.nl&gt;, &lt;casinocircus.nl&gt; and &lt;circuscasino.nl&gt; and operates online gambling services under the CIRCUS brand. &nbsp;<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "casino-circus.co.nl": "TRANSFERRED",
        "circuscasino.co.com": "TRANSFERRED",
        "circuscasinos.co.nl": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}