Rootz Ltd v Dynadot Privacy Service, Super Privacy Service Ltd c/o

WIPO Case No. DIO2025-0013

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Rootz Ltd v. Dynadot Privacy Service, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o
Dynadot

Case No. DIO2025-0013

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Rootz Ltd, Malta, represented Wilmark Oy, Finland.

The Respondent is Dynadot Privacy Service, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of

America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <wildz.io> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 14, 2025. connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 16, 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 the same day.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .IO 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 22, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 12, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 13, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on May 15, 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 a provider of online gaming and casino services under various brand names including WILDZ, which it appears to have operated since 2019. The Complainant submits that its WILDZ casino has provided over two hundred million “free spins” to customers and that it made a payout of over EUR 4 million in 2020. The Complainant operates a website at “ which provides further information about its services.

The Complainant is the owner of various registrations for the trademark WILDZ, including for example:

- United Kingdom trademark registration number 00917589813 for the word mark WILDZ, registered on April
25, 2018 in numerous International Classes.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 25, 2025. It appears on April 22, 2025 to have resolved to a gaming website headed “10,000€” and inviting users to register. At the date of this Decision, it resolved to a similar website, with the additional branding “Wildz”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark WILDZ.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has no relationship with the Respondent and has never authorized it to use its WILDZ trademark, that the Respondent has not commonly been known by the disputed domain name and

that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of
the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is instead using the disputed
domain name to confuse and divert Internet users to its competing casino website.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith. It submits that its trademark WILDZ was in use for casino services long before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent can only have done so in order to capitalize on the goodwill that attaches to the Complainant’s trademark. It contends that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to confuse the Complainant’s customers and potential customers into visiting its website instead of the Complainant’s.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are that:

page 3

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 or is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights for the mark WILDZ. The disputed domain name reproduces that trademark and is identical to it.

The first element under the Policy is therefore established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has failed to file a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. Moreover, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in order to impersonate the Complainant, which cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent.

The second element under the Policy is therefore established.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant’s trademark WILDZ is distinctive in nature and had been used by the Complainant for online casino and gaming services for several years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, and given the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a casino website branded “Wildz”, and the lack of any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel can only conclude that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in order to impersonate the Complainant for financial gain. The Panel finds in particular that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).

The third element under the Policy is therefore established.

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.io> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Steven A. Maier/
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: May 22, 2025