Elec Games C1 Limited v Matti Metsola, Setarcos Consulting Limited

WIPO Case No. D2025-1357

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Elec Games C1 Limited v. Matti Metsola, Setarcos Consulting Limited

Case No. D2025-1357

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Elec Games C1 Limited, Malta, represented by Abion AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Matti Metsola, Setarcos Consulting Limited, Malta.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <netticasinot.online> is registered with Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 3, 2025. On
April 4, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On April 4, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (Not Disclosed) and contact information in the Complaint. The
Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 10, 2025, providing the registrant and
contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the

Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 16, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 7, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 8, 2025.

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on May 16, 2025. The Panel finds that it
was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of
Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant a Malta-registered company that owns and operates online gambling platforms.

The Complainant is the registered owner of the NETTICASINO and NETTI CASINO trademarks. For instance, the Complainant is the owner of the European Union Trademark Registrations No. 010997054, registered on December 26, 2013, for NETTICASINO, and No. 010997666, for NETTI CASINO, registered on March 26, 2013, both claiming protection for a large variety of goods and services as protected in international classes 9, 41 and 42.

The Complainant further owns and operates its official website at <netticasino.com>, which was first registered on February 9, 2004.

The Respondent is reportedly located in Malta.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 15, 2025.

According to the unrebutted evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name has so far not been actively used and does not resolve to an active website but to a general parking page only.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the
Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that a complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if a respondent has not substantively replied to the complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.

However, concerning the uncontested information provided by a complainant, the Panel may, where
relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in a complaint as true. WIPO Overview of WIPO
Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.

page 3

It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistently with the consensus views captured therein.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the NETTICASINO and NETTI CASINO trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the marks is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NETTICASINO and NETTI CASINO marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms and letters, here the letter “t”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that such addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the NETTICASINO and NETTI CASINO marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant

evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section
2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel particularly notes that the nature of the disputed domain name, which comprises the Complainant’s NETTICASINO and NETTI CASINO trademarks in its entirety, indicates the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant and its trademarks, and hence, its intent to take unfair advantage of such, which does not support a finding of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent.

In addition, the disputed domain name has apparently never resolved to an active website which also does not support a finding of any rights or legitimate interests under the circumstances of this case.

The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

page 4

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its NETTICASINO and NETTI CASINO trademarks in mind when registering the disputed domain name, particularly considering the nature and composition of the disputed domain name. It is obvious to the Panel, that the Respondent has deliberately chosen the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NETTICASINO and NETTI CASINO trademarks (the only difference being an added “t” at the end), to target and benefit from the reputation of the Complainant in the online gambling sector. The Panel further notes that the Respondent is reportedly located in Malta, like the Complainant, which makes it even more likely that the Respondent knew and targeted the Complainant and its NETTICASINO and NETTI CASINO trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

As regards bad faith use, Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Although panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. In the present case, the Panel notes the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s NETTICASINO and NETTI CASINO trademarks, the inherently misleading composition of the disputed domain name, and the unlikeliness of any good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, and finds that in the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <netticasinot.online> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Kaya Köklü/
Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: May 30, 2025