Rootz LTD v Gabriel Barbulescu

WIPO Case No. D2023-2796

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Rootz LTD v. Gabriel Barbulescu

Case No. D2023-2796

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 <wildz.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 June 28, 2023.
On June 30, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On July 2, 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 Disclosed) and contact information in the Complaint. The
Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 3, 2023, 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 4, 2023.

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 proceeding commenced on July 7, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the
due date for Response was July 27, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the

Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 4, 2023.

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on August 8, 2023. 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

A. Complainant

The Complainant is a company headquartered in Malta and the operator of an online casino under the trade mark WILDZ (the “Trade Mark”).

The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations in jurisdictions worldwide for the Trade Mark, including European Union registration No. 017589813, registered on April 25, 2018.

B. Respondent

The Respondent is located in Romania.

C. The Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name was registered on May 3, 2022.

D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name resolved to an English language online casino website under the name WILDZ
CASINO, with links to websites of online casinos operated by competitors of the Complainant (the
“Website”).

As at the date of this Decision, the disputed domain name redirected to the domain name <wildzcasino.io> displaying similar content as was published on the Website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark.

Disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain “.bet”, the disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark.

page 3

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:

(i)        before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii)       the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii)      the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden

of production is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.

The Respondent has failed to show that he has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been used in respect of the Website, promoting an online casino in direct competition with the online casino operated by the Complainant under the Trade Mark, under the name WILDZ CASINO containing the Trade Mark.

There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In light of the manner of use of the disputed domain name highlighted in section 6.2.B above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, by intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trade Mark.

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.bet> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Sebastian M.W. Hughes/
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 22, 2023