Entain Operations Limited v Mysar Mykhailo, Individual

WIPO Case No. D2025-1824

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Entain Operations Limited v. Mysar Mykhailo, Individual

Case No. D2025-1824

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Entain Operations Limited, Gibraltar, United Kingdom, represented by Wiggin LLP,

United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Mysar Mykhailo, Individual, Ukraine.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <partycasinospain.top> is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

May 7, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 9, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the	The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 7, 2025. On registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 12, 2025.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 May 15, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 4, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 10, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on June 26, 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.

4. Further Procedural Considerations

Under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel is required to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and also that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.

Since the Respondent’s mailing address is stated to be in Ukraine which is subject to an international conflict at the date of this Decision that may impact case notification, it is appropriate for the Panel to consider, in accordance with its discretion under paragraph 10 of the Rules, whether the proceeding should continue.

Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Panel is of the view that it should. The Panel notes that the Center successfully sent the Written Notice of the Complaint to the Respondent’s physical address in Ukraine, however the same could not be delivered due to the absence of the recipient. The Panel also notes that the Center sent the Notification of Complaint by email to the Respondent at its email address as

registered with the Registrar and to a postmaster email address as specified by the Rules. The records indicate that the notification email was sent to the Registrar-confirmed email address of the Respondent.

Furthermore, for the reasons which are set out later in this Decision, the Panel has no serious doubt (albeit in the absence of any Response) that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith and with the intention of unfairly targeting the Complainant’s goodwill in its trademark.

The Panel concludes that the Parties have been given a fair opportunity to present their case, and so that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition the Panel will proceed to a Decision accordingly.

5. Factual Background

The Complainant is a private limited company and is related to sports betting, gaming and interactive
entertainment goods and services and operates in more than 18 countries, in locations across Europe,

Oceania, Asia, North and South America.

The Complainant owns trademarks consisting of the term “PARTYCASINO”, including but not limited to:

Jurisdiction	Reg No.	Trademark	App Date	Reg Date	Classes
Canada	TMA774104	PARTYCASINO	December	August 10,	9, 16, 41, 42
20, 2004	2010
Japan	4897713	PARTYCASINO	December	September	9, 41, 42
21, 2004	30, 2005
European	004186185	PARTYCASINO	January 12,	April 9, 2009	9, 42
Union	2005

United	UK00904186185 PARTYCASINO	January 12,	April 9, 2009	9, 42
Kingdom	2005

The Complainant also owns the domain name <partycasino.com>, registered on April 28, 1998.

The Respondent is Mysar Mykhailo, from Ukraine.

page 3

The disputed domain name was registered on October 19, 2023, and resolves to an inactive page.

However, at the time of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a page related to a gaming and interactive entertainment platform bearing the Complainant’s PARTYCASINO trademark and logo.

6. 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.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark
PARTYCASINO.

There is no evidence that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with any noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

That being the case, the Complainant finds that the disputed domain name is likely to make Internet users assume that the website that is linked to the disputed domain name offers some kind of services supplied by the Complainant.

According to the Complainant, it has prior rights over the trademark PARTYCASINO and has not authorized the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant’s intellectual property rights for PARTYCASINO trademarks and domain name predate the registration of the disputed domain name.

According to the Complainant, the registration and use of the disputed domain name has been conducted in bad faith.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions

7. Discussion and Findings

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 the trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights;

(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 used in bad faith.

page 4

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the PARTYCASINO mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

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 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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed as impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation as it effectively impersonated the

Complainant.

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

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.

In the present case, the Panel finds that the Respondent was clearly aware of PARTYCASINO trademark as the disputed domain name displayed PARTYCASINO trademark and offered identical services, intentionally attempting to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark.

page 5

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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed as impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. 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.

8. 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 <partycasinospain.top> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Mario Soerensen Garcia/
Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: July 9, 2025