Société Anonyme des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v; Isakov Sergey

WIPO Case No. D2025-0396

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Société Anonyme des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v.
Isakov Sergey

Case No. D2025-0396

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Société Anonyme des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco, Monaco, represented by De Gaulle Fleurance & Associés, France.

The Respondent is Isakov Sergey, Ukraine.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <casino-enligne-monaco.com> 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 January 31, 2025. On January 31, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 4, 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 (Domain Admin, Whois protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o.) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 5, 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 amended Complaint on February 10, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 February 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules,
paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 9, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 12, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on March 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.

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. 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 that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.

Although the Respondent’s mailing address is stated to be in Ukraine (though such fact is not possible to verify), which is subject to an international conflict at the date of this Decision which 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.

The Panel is of the view that it should. Further to the Rules, the Center transmitted written notice of the
Complaint to the Respondent. While it is noted that the registered courier unsuccessfully sent to the
Respondent’s physical address, the Panel notes that a fax communication with the written notice was
successfully transmitted to the Respondent, and the Notification of the Complaint sent via the Respondent’s
Registrar-confirmed email address was successfully transmitted to the Respondent.

The Panel also notes that the Complainant has specified in the Complaint that any challenge made by the jurisdiction of the courts at the location of the Respondent. The Panel moreover notes that it is clear the Complainant has been targeted and that this is not a coincidental domain name registration, as is further described herein.

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 Monegasque company, whose seventy percent of share capital is owned by the government of the Principauté of Monaco. In 1863, the Complainant was granted a monopoly for casino and gambling activities for the territory of the Principauté of Monaco by the Prince of Monaco and is therefore the only company entitled to organize casino games and gambling in Monaco. The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations:

- Monaco Trademark Registration No. 96.17407 CASINO DE MONTE-CARLO, applied for on August 13, 1996, and registered on October 30, 1996;

page 3

- Monaco Trademark Registration No. 02.23234 CASINO DE MONACO, applied for on July 1, 2002, and registered on September 30, 2002.

The Complainant is operating since 1863 in the field of gambling and casino services, more recently also online at the website “

The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.

According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on April 14, 2022, and it resolves to an error page. However, when the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name resolved to a website in which the Respondent was offering a sort of practical guide to online casinos, including the Complainant’s competitors, while showing pictures of the Complainant’s casino taken from the Complainant’s website.

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.

Notably, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark
CASINO DE MONACO, as the disputed domain name contains both terms “casino” and “monaco”.

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 CASINO DE MONACO is distinctive and well-known in the field of casinos and gambling services. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of

registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online locations, qualifies as bad faith registration and use.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

7. 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;

(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.

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 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1.

The Complainant’s trademark CASINO DE MONACO is recognizable 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.

While the addition of other terms, here “enligne” (meaning “online” in French), 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 mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain, in this case “.com”, 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 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 record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie 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.

page 5

In the present case, regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark CASINO DE MONACO in the field of the casinos and gambling services 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 in the website at the disputed domain name the Respondent was offering a sort of practical guide to online casinos, including the Complainant’s competitors, while showing pictures of the Complainant’s casino taken from the Complainant’s website.

The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name was also being used in bad faith since the website at the disputed domain name referred to online casino games and gambling, that is the Complainant’s business activity, including the Complainant’s competitors, while showing pictures of the Complainant’s casino taken

from the Complainant’s website. Therefore, the Respondent was 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 was 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.

As regards the current use of the disputed domain name, being inactive, panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark in the field of casinos and gambling services, the nature of the disputed domain name (which is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark CASINO DE MONACO), the previous use of the disputed domain name, and the failure of the Respondent to submit a response, and finds that in the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

Furthermore, the Panel considers that the nature of the inherently misleading disputed domain name, which is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark CASINO DE MONACO with the exception of the term “de” and the addition of the term “enligne” (meaning “online” in French, namely referring to one of the

Complainant’s fields of activity), 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.

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, <casino-enligne-monaco.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Edoardo Fano/
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: April 4, 2025