Rootz Ltd v Gabriel Barbulescu

WIPO Case No. D2023-4593

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Rootz LTD v. Gabriel Barbulescu

Case No. D2023-4593

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Rootz LTD, Malta, represented by Wilmark Oy, Finland.

The Respondent is Gabriel Barbulescu, Romania.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <caxino.bet> is registered with Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 6,

2023. On November 6, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar 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 November 14, 2023.

verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 7, 2023, 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 available) and contact information in the

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 November 20, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 10, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 15, 2023.

The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on December 21, 2023. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and

page 2

Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the
Rules, paragraph 7.

The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.

Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the

Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available

means calculated to achieve actual notice to [the] Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision

based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a
response from the Respondent.

The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is Rootz LTD, a Maltese company operating in the field of online casinos, one of which is called CAXINO, and owning several trademark registrations for CAXINO, among which:

- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 018017682 for CAXINO, registered on October 7, 2020;

- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 018211738 for CAXINO and design, registered on
July 7, 2020;

- International Trademark Registration No. 1552795 for CAXINO, registered on February 19, 2020.

The Complainant also owns the website “ in connection with its online casino services

provided under the trademark CAXINO.

The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.

According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on May 3, 2022, and it redirects to a website purportedly offering online casino services, namely the same services as the Complainant,

including links to the Complainant’s competitors.

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.

Notably, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark

CAXINO, as the disputed domain name wholly contains the Complainant’s trademark.

Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since

the Complainant’s trademark CAXINO is distinctive. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s

page 3

trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the

use of the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website,

creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation,

or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, qualifies as bad faith registration and use.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. In reference to

paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put
forward or are apparent from the record.

A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP

Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark 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.

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.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain, in this case “.bet”, is typically ignored when

assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

Based on the available record, 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.

While 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 often impossible

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. If the respondent fails to

page 4

come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

prima facie

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a case that the 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.

Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Based on the available record, 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, regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the

Complainant’s trademark CAXINO in the field of online casinos is clearly established, and the Panel finds

that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant, and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, especially because the website at the disputed domain name redirects to a website which purportedly offers online casino services, namely the same services as the Complainant, including links to

the Complainant’s competitors.

The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith since the Respondent

is trying to attract Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s

trademark as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement, an activity

clearly detrimental to the Complainant’s business.

The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed

domain name in order both to disrupt the Complainant’s business, and to attract Internet users to its website

in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Furthermore, the Panel considers that the nature of the inherently misleading disputed domain name, which

includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, further supports a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview

3.0, section 3.2.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been 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, <caxino.bet>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Edoardo Fano/

Edoardo Fano

Sole Panelist
Date: January 4, 2024