Société Anonyme des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v; RICARDO freire barros, rastriei

WIPO Case No. D2025-1633

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Société Anonyme des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v.
RICARDO freire barros, rastriei

Case No. D2025-1633

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 RICARDO freire barros, rastriei, Brazil.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <montecarlosbet.online> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 23, 2025.
On April 23, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On April 23, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY / Registration Private, Domains By
Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the
Complainant on April 25, 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 April 30, 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 May 2, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 22, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 23, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Gareth Dickson as the sole panelist in this matter on May 30, 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 limited liability company and was incorporated in Monaco by sovereign decree on April facilities, and leisure venues.

6, 1863. It operates luxury casinos (including the Casino de Monte-Carlo, Monte-Carlo Bay Casino, Casino

It is the registered proprietor of a number of trade mark registrations for or incorporating the trade mark

MONTE CARLO (the “Mark”) or MONTE-CARLO, including the following:

- Monaco registration no. 96.17407, for CASINO DE MONTE-CARLO, filed on August 13, 1996 and

registered on October 30, 1996; and

- Monaco registration no. 14.30170, for MONTE CARLO, filed on December 31, 2013 and registered on

February 12, 2014.

Both registrations cover luxury entertainment and gambling-related services, and the Mark is well known for those services around the world, being referenced extensively in popular culture.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 3, 2024 and is currently inactive.

The Respondent is RICARDO freire barros, located in Maceio, Brazil. The Respondent has not submitted a

Response.

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 contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark, that the is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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 trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

page 3

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the Mark is reproduced 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.

Although the addition of other terms (here, the letter “s” and “bet”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms 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.

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). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. 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 2.1.0

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, including by affirming that it has no relationship with the Respondent and has not authorised the use of the Mark within a domain name or otherwise; and by providing evidence of searches it has conducted (together with their results) to establish whether there is any evidence that the Respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in

respect of 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 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.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the incorporating the Mark along with an additional “s” and the term “bet” that suggests gambling services, a field directly associated with the Complainant’s business. The Panel further notes the evidence on file that the Respondent is active in the gambling industry as the Respondent’s contact details were associated with two

page 4

gambling websites, making it virtually certain that the disputed domain name incorporating “monte carlo” was
chosen specifically to take unfair advantage of its significance as the Mark owned by the Complainant.

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 available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Mark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

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 <montecarlosbet.online> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Gareth Dickson/
Gareth Dickson
Sole Panelist
Date: June 6, 2025