Granturo Platform Ltd v Oleksandr Bashenko

WIPO Case No. D2025-2645

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Granturo Platform Ltd v. Oleksandr Bashenko

Case No. D2025-2645

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Granturo Platform Ltd, Malta, represented by Wilmark Oy, Finland.

The Respondent is Oleksandr Bashenko, Ukraine.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <wildz-casinos.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with URL

Solutions, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 4, 2025. On July 7, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 7, 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 (Private Whois, Global Domain Privacy Services Inc) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 9, 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 amendment to the Complaint on July 9, 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 July 11, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 31, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 4, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Flip Jan Claude Petillion as the sole panelist in this matter on August 8, 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. Factual Background

The Complainant is the holder of trademark registrations across various jurisdictions throughout the world for WILDZ, which cover gaming and casino services. The Complainant’s trademark portfolio includes, inter alia, the following registrations:

- WILDZ, International word mark registered with WIPO on June 13, 2018, under number 1443415 in

class 41;

- figurative European Union trade mark depicted below, registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) on August 15, 2020, under number 018219521 in class 41;

page 3

casinos.com” suggesting that WILDZ casino is of a “low rating” and having advertisements for competing
online casinos. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Disputed Domain Name was selected and is being used

by the Respondent to confuse potential customers and to mislead Internet users;

- this also negatively affects the Complainant's online presence and disrupts the Complainant's

business.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Preliminary Matters

The Panel notes that the Respondent’s postal address is stated to be in Ukraine and that no communication has been received from the Respondent.

Since Ukraine 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. See Fridababy, LLC v. Vladimir Veselovskiy, WIPO Case No. D2025-0248.

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

The Panel notes that the Center has used the Respondent’s email address as registered with the Registrar for the purposes of notifying the Complaint. Although no delivery notification of the case notification email has been sent from the destination server, the delivery to the Respondent’s email address was stated to be complete.

In addition, the Panel observes that in the framework of a previous UDRP case between the same Parties, the Respondent apparently sent an informal email to the Center, indicating it receives the Center’s notifications. See Granturo Platform Ltd v. Oleksandr Bashenko, WIPO Case No. D2025-2238.

Further, the Respondent apparently registered the Disputed Domain Name as recently as May 2025, and thus would appear to be capable of controlling the Disputed Domain Name and the related content.

Also, for the reasons which are set out later in this decision, the Panel has no serious doubt (albeit in the absence of a formal Response) that the Respondent registered and has used the Disputed Domain Name and with the intention of unfairly targeting the Complainant’s goodwill in its trademark.

Lastly, the Complainant has selected as the mutual jurisdiction the courts at the location of the principal offices of the concerned Registrar, such courts not being subject to an international conflict. Therefore, the Panel finds that proceeding with the present decision does not preempt the Respondent from asserting its rights under paragraph 4(k) of the Policy to submit this dispute to the courts at the applicable mutual jurisdiction.

In view of the above, the Panel considers it appropriate to proceed to a decision.

page 4

6.2. Substantive Elements of the Policy

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.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of trademarks or service marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the Complainant’s WILDZ mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name.
Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms, here “casinos”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Additionally, it is well established that generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”), here “.com”, may be disregarded when considering whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which a complainant has rights.

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.

The Panel notes that the Respondent has not apparently been commonly known by the Disputed Domain

Name, and that the Respondent does not seem to have acquired trademark or service mark rights. 

According to the information provided by the Registrar, the Respondent is named “Oleksandr Bashenko”.

Where a domain name consists of a trademark plus an additional term, UDRP panels have largely held that such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s WILDZ mark in its entirety and simply adds a hyphen and the term “casinos”,

page 5

which is directly linked to the Complainant’s business. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain
Name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant and cannot constitute fair use.

Beyond looking at the domain name and the nature of any additional terms appended to it, UDRP panels assess whether the overall facts and circumstances of the case, such as the content of the website linked to a disputed domain name and the absence of a response, support a fair use or not. WIPO Overview 3.0,

sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3. 

The Panel observes that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s word and figurative marks, using the same yellow color of the latter. Links on the website redirect to another domain name and related website which suggests that the WILDZ casino brand has a “low rating”, and which promotes competing online casinos as “reliable alternatives”. Given the nature of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel finds that this neither amounts to a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.

The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests but did not do so.  In the

absence of a Response from the Respondent, the prima facie case established by the Complainant has not

been rebutted. 

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. Among these factors demonstrating bad faith registration and use is the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a 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 the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location.

In the present case, the Panel finds it inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name:

- some of the Complainant’s WILDZ marks predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by more than five years;

- the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of a descriptive term which can be directly linked to the Complainant’s business;

- the website linked to the Disputed Domain Name displays both word and figurative marks of the

Complainant and appears to promote services competing with the Complainant’s services.

In the Panel’s view, the circumstances of this case indicate that the Respondent has intentionally attempted
to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant’s trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.4.

In addition, the Panel notes that the Respondent has already been found to have registered and used another domain name in bad faith in a previous UDRP case involving the same Parties and regarding very similar facts. See Granturo Platform Ltd v. Oleksandr Bashenko, WIPO Case No. D2025-2238. In the Panel’s view, this indicates a pattern of trademark-abusive domain name registrations, which is further evidence of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.2.

By failing to respond to the Complaint, the Respondent did not take any initiative to contest the foregoing.
Pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Rules, the Panel may draw the conclusions it considers appropriate.

page 6

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 <wildz-casinos.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Flip Jan Claude Petillion/
Flip Jan Claude Petillion
Sole Panelist
Date: August 22, 2025

The Disputed Domain Name has been registered on May 15, 2025. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s word and figurative marks. Links on this website redirect to another domain name and related website which suggests that the WILDZ casino brand has a “low rating”, and which promotes competing online casinos as “reliable alternatives”.

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.    

First, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in

which it claims to have rights. 

Second, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the

Disputed Domain Name as, in summary, according to the Complainant: 

- the Respondent has not received permission or authorization to use the Complainant's trademark, and

does not have any trademark rights (registered or unregistered) to “wildz”;

- there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or is

making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name;

- the Respondent is opportunistically using the goodwill of the Complainant's registered WILDZ

trademark in order to attract Internet users to its website.

Finally, the Complainant claims that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad

faith.  In summary, according to the Complainant: 

- the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name with an intent to capitalize on the

reputation and goodwill attached to the Complainant's registered trademark WILDZ;

- the Respondent uses the Complainant's registered WILDZ trademarks on the website linked to the

Disputed Domain Name, which also includes links to an online casino related website called ”