WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Dareos LTD., Dareos INC. v. Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd. / Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Анастасия Волошина / Алексей Харитонов

Case No. D2020-0986

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Dareos LTD., Dareos INC., Cyprus, represented by Mapa Trademarks SL, Spain.

The Respondents are Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd., Belize, Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org), United States of America, Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America, Анастасия Волошина, Russian Federation, Алексей Харитонов, Russian Federation.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain names <cazino-vulcan-slot.online> and <fun-vulcan-game.com> are registered with Godaddy,com LLC (“Registrar 1”).

The disputed domain names <cazino-vulcan-online.org>, <cazino-vulcan-slot.net>, <cazino-vulcan-slot.org>, <vol-kano.com>, <vulcan-azart-game.com>, <vulcanazartgame.com>, <vulcan-casino-slot.net>, <vulcan-cazino.online>, <vulcan-cazino-online.net>, <vulcan-cazino-online.org>, <vulcan-club-cazino.com>, <vulcan-kazino.org>, <vul-kan.club>, <vulkan-kasino-online.net>, <vylcan-game.com>, <vylcangame.com>, and <vylcangames.com> are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (“Registrar 2”, referred to collectively as the “Registrars”). The disputed domain names will be referred to collectively as the Domain Names.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 22, 2020. On April 22, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On April 23, 2020, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 28, 2020, 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, 2020.

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 25, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 14, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 15, 2020.

The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on June 24, 2020. 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. On July 6, 2020, the Complainant submitted an unsolicited supplemental filing.

4. Factual Background

The Complainants are the owners of Вулкан and VULKAN trade marks (referred to hereafter as the Complainant”). Vulkan is the transliteration of Вулкан in Roman script. The English translation of Вулкан is “Volcano” or “Vulcan”. The Complainant purchased these trade marks from Ritzio Purchase Limited (“Ritzio”). Ritzio is a gaming and casino operator which was formed in or about 1992. It is active in a number of countries, although a large proportion of its users are located in the Russian Federation. It is now the licensee of the Complainant and operates over 230 gambling clubs, which are branded Вулкан and/or VULKAN and more than 63,000 gaming machines all over Europe. Another licensee of the Complainant, Matchbet LLC provides online gaming activity under the Вулкан and VULKAN trade marks on the website connected to the domain name <vulkanbet.ru>.

The Complainants own a large portfolio of registered trade marks for VULKAN, VOLCANO and Вулкан including International Trade Mark Registration No. 984297, for VULKAN, registered on August 11, 2008, and International Trade Mark, Registration No. 989103, for VOLCANO registered on August 11, 2008 (the “Trade Marks”).

The Complaint involves 19 Domain Names which are registered to multiple Respondents as detailed below:

The home page of the website connected to Domain Name 1 (“Website 1”) prominently features the Complainant’s Вулкан trade mark and its distinctive logo. It is a gaming site and purports to be or connected to the Complainant. It calls itself “The official Vulcan casino with online slot machines”. On the “About Us” page” the following words appear:

“For many years, “Volcano” held the position of the largest national network of gaming clubs. The name of the club has become almost synonymous for excitement, known to everyone who was somehow connected to the gaming industry. Due to the introduction of legislative restrictions in Russia, we focused on the World Wide Web. After moving the main headquarters of the company abroad, our clubs have moved to a new level of development and began to position themselves as online casinos, because of our customers are people who appreciate a truly interesting vacation, stayed with us! We will continue our work in Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Belarus and many other countries.”

There have been a number of previous UDRP proceedings involving similar multiple disputed domain names similar to the Domain Names involving the Respondents Asocial Games Ltd and Denis Belov which has resulted in the disputed domain names being transferred to the Complainant or its predecessor in title Ritzio. These include Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service Inc d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Denis Belov WIPO Case No. D2016-2244; Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd. / Ivenkov Vitaly WIPO Case No. D2017-1294 and Dareos LTD, Dareos Inc., Ritzio Purchase Limited v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Denis Belov, Asocial Games Ltd. and Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Ivenkov Vitaly WIPO Case No. D2019-1304 (the “Previous Proceedings”).

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Names, and that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Names, all of which it believes are related and under management and common control of a single entity or network. The basis of its belief that the registrants are related and under management and common control of a single network are as follows:

1. The registrant of Domain Names 1, 2, 3, 4,17 and 19 is Asocial Games Ltd. against which the Complainant or its predecessor in title has succeeded in a number of UDRP proceedings (referred to in Section 4 above) involving disputed domain names similar to the Domain Names.

2. The registrant of Domain Names 5, 6,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,16 and 18 is Denis Belov against which the Complainant or its predecessor in title has succeeded in a number of UDRP proceedings (referred to in Section 4 above) involving disputed domain names bearing the Trade Mark.

3. Asocial Games Ltd. and Denis Belov have been found in at least two sets of UDRP proceedings to be related or part of a single entity or network.

4. The websites connected to the Domain Names (the “Websites”) are identical to each other and the websites connected to the domain names in relation to the Previous Proceedings.

5. In the “About Us” page of all the Websites, the operational company is listed as Bonostar Limited and the License holder, Novolux Services Limited.

6. All the Websites have a link titled ‘Affiliate Programme’ which clicks through to “http://perestroika.team”. This website is designed in a similar way as the Websites.

7. The 19 Domain Names are registered with two Registrars and many are registered on the same days i.e. a) Domain Names 2, 4 and 6 – April 30, 2020
b) Domain Names 3 and 11 – December 12, 2018
c) Domain Names 8 and 10 – July 5, 2017
d) Domain Names 13 and 14 – December 12, 2016
e) Domain Names 16 and 17 – March 14, 2019

8. Almost all the Domain Names were registered in the name of privacy protection services.

9. The Websites all have the same contact email and phone number.

Additional submissions were made by the Complainant which the Panel has not been able to follow and therefore have not been included above.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Unsolicited Supplemental Filings

The Complainant filed an unsolicited supplemental filing on July 6, 2020 to add to the evidence of its case. The Complainant has alleged that all Websites are identical but only provided evidence of Website 1. It appears that the Complainant wanted to remedy this. The Complainant’s unsolicited supplemental filing is not accepted. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. The purpose of the UDRP is to provide for a quick and inexpensive way to resolve domain name disputes. Each party has one opportunity under the Rules to put forward its entire case. The Complainant being the initiator of the proceedings, it has an obligation to substantiate its allegations in the Complaint as there are generally no other opportunities to file additional evidence. It is only in exceptional circumstances that a Panel will allow additional evidence to be filed. Section 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) says this:

Unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged, unless specifically requested by the panel.
On receipt of a request to submit an unsolicited supplemental filing or the actual receipt of such filing, the WIPO Center will confirm receipt of the request or filing to the parties, and forward such request or filing to the panel for its consideration as to admissibility.
In all such cases, panels have repeatedly affirmed that the party submitting or requesting to submit an unsolicited supplemental filing should clearly show its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide the information contained therein in its complaint or response (e.g., owing to some “exceptional” circumstance)”.

Further the Complainant, in its application to the Center to file additional evidence, did not provide good reasons why it was unable to provide that information in the Complaint. Hence, it is not appropriate case under the circumstances for any more additional evidence to be considered. In any event, the Panel did read the filing and nothing in it would alter the decision below.

6.2 Consolidation of Proceedings

Paragraph 4(f) of the Policy allows a panel to consolidate multiple disputes between parties at its sole discretion and paragraph 10(e) of the Rules empowers a panel to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. Neither the Policy nor the Rules expressly provide for the consolidation of multiple respondents in a single administrative proceeding. In fact, paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. The panel in Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons, WIPO Case No. D2010-0281 reviewed the relevant UDRP decisions in relation to consolidation in multiple respondents’ cases and extracted the following general principles:

1. Consolidation of multiple registrants as respondents in a single administrative proceeding may in certain circumstances be appropriate under paragraphs 3(c) or 10(e) of the Rules provided the complainant can demonstrate that the disputed domain names or the websites to which they resolve are subject to common control, and the panel having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, determines that consolidation would be procedurally efficient and fair and equitable to all parties.

2. The administrative provider should act as a preliminary gatekeeper in such cases by determining whether or not such complaints fulfill the requisite criteria. Once a case is admitted on a prima facie basis, the respondent has the opportunity to make its submissions on the validity of the consolidation together with its substantive arguments. In the event that the panel makes a finding that the complaint has not satisfied the requisite criteria, the complainant is not precluded from filing the complaint against the individual named respondents.

The Complainant has provided evidence referred to above to substantiate its case that two of the Respondents, Asocial Games Limited and Denis Belov are either one and the same person, entity or network and are somehow connected to each other and under common control aimed at intentionally infringing the Complainant’s trade marks particularly because of the decisions in the Previous Proceedings.

With respect to the registrants of Domain Names 7 and 15, Алексей Харитонов and Анастасия Волошина respectively, the Complainant’s case is that they too are one and the same person, entity or network as Asocial Games Limited and Dennis Belov because these Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks and the Websites connected to these Domain Names are identical to all the Websites connected to the rest of the Domain Names. However the Complainant failed to conclusively substantiate the second assertion as it did not provide any printouts of the Website connected to Domain Name 7 and 15. As both these Websites appear to be inactive at the time of this decision, the Panel is unable to view them to see if they are indeed the same as Website 1. As stated in Section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, conclusory statements unsupported by evidence will normally be insufficient to prove a party’s case. The Panel notes that Domain Names 7 and 15 are the only two registered with Registrar 1. All the others are registered with Registrar 2. The contact details provided by Registrar 1 for these two Domain Names are not the same as those of Asocial Games Limited and Dennis Belov. On balance, the Panel is unable to conclude that Domain Names 7 and 15 are somehow connected to Asocial Games Limited and Denis Belov and are under their common control.

Accordingly, applying the principles to the facts in this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established more likely than not that Domain Names 1-6, 8-14 and 16-19 are subject to common ownership or control. The Panel finds such common control to justify consolidation of the Complainant’s claims against the registrants of these Domain Names in this proceeding. The Panel further concludes in the circumstances of this case that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties and procedurally efficient, and therefore will allow the consolidation as requested by the Complainant subject to the above limitation pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The Respondents Asocial Games Limited and Denis Belov may therefore be referred to as the Respondent. As for Domain Names 7 and 15, the Panel denies the request for consolidation and the Complainant will need to file separate proceedings against the registrants of these two Domain Names. All further references to these proceedings, the Domain Names, the Respondent and the Registrar will not include Domain Name 7, <cazino-vulcan-slot.online> and Domain Name 15, <fun-vulcan-game.com>, Алексей Харитонов and Анастасия Волошина and Registrar 1, Godaddy,com LLC respectively. The Complaint involves 17 rather than 19 Domain Names.

6.3 General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Names, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) The Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and

(iii) The Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

6.4 Substantive Analysis

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the trade marks VULKAN and VOLCANO which is has registered and used in many countries.

The threshold test for confusingly similarity involves the comparison between the trade mark and the domain name itself such that the trade mark would generally be recognizable within the domain name. In this case one of the Domain Names comprise the VULKAN trade mark in its entirety except for the addition of a hyphen in the middle “VUL-KAN”. The hyphen does not in any way detract from the fact that it is identical or confusingly similar to the VULKAN trade mark. 12 of the Domain Names include the sign “Vulcan” together with hyphens and generic terms or misspellings of generic terms which relate to the Complainant’s gaming and casino business (e.g. “cazino”, “slot”, “online”, “kasino”, “kazino” and “club”). In the Panel’s view, the sign “Vulcan” is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VULKAN trade mark. Moreover, even though more relevant under the third element of the Policy, the Panel notes here that the association is strengthened by the addition of the generic words which directly refer to the Complainant’s business. Five of the Domain Names comprise the sign “Vylcan” which is also a misspelling of the VULKAN trade mark and the addition of hyphens and the generic terms “games”, “game” and “azart”. The word “azart” is the English transliteration of the Russian word “Азарт” which means “excitement” or “ardour”. In the Panel’s view the sign “Vylcan” is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VULKAN trade mark. The remaining Domain Name comprises the sign Vol-kano” which is a misspelling of the Complainant’s VOLCANO trade mark with an added hyphen. The Panel finds this confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VOLCANO trade mark.

For the purposes of assessing identity and confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the various generic domain suffixes, generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) which in this case are “.online”, “.org”, “.net”, “.com” and “.club”. For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name by demonstrating any of the following:

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

(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers.

Although the Policy addresses ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, it is well established that, as it is put in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, that a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent does come forward with some allegations of evidence of relevant rights or legitimate interests, the panel weighs all the evidence, with the burden of proof always remaining on the complainant.

The Panel notes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names and does not seem to have acquired trade mark rights. The Respondent’s use and registration of the Domain Names are clearly not authorized by the Complainant as evidenced also by the Previous Proceedings.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not responded and the Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

To succeed under the Policy, the Complainant must show that the Domain Names have been both registered and used in bad faith. It is a double requirement.

The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Trade Marks when it registered the Domain Names. The Trade Marks pre-date the registration of the Domain Names. The Domain Names were registered between December 12, 2016 to March 6, 2020. The complaint in the earliest Previous Proceedings, WIPO Case No. D2016-2244, supra, was filed on November 4, 2016. It is clear that the Respondent was aware of the Trade Marks when it registered the Domain Name. The Panel finds that registration is in bad faith.

The Domain Names are also used in bad faith. As stated by the Panel in WIPO Case No. D2017-1294, supra, of the Previous Proceedings:

“On the evidence before the Panel it seems entirely clear that the Respondents are engaged in what is in essence a very simple scheme – they simply impersonate the Complainant and by doing so seek to divert its business to themselves. It is not necessary to analyze in any detail all the various factors the Complainant has pointed to. Put simply, the Respondents produce multiple websites which are designed to look like those of the Complainant and which will no doubt entice customers who visit them to gamble with the Respondents rather than the Complainant.”

The Respondent is doing exactly the same here. Notwithstanding the fact that the Complainant only filed evidence of Website 1 and not of the other Websites, the Panel is able to infer in light of the following factors:

- All the Websites belong to the same Respondent and comprise of Domain Names which are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks,
- The findings in the Previous Proceedings are strong evidence that the other Websites are more likely than not also identical or similar to Website 1 and the websites in the Previous Proceedings.
- The Respondent failed to respond to offer any evidence to the contrary.

From the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, by misleading Internet users into believing that the Respondents’ websites are authorised or somehow connected to the Complainant. The Panel therefore also concludes that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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 Domain Names, <cazino-vulcan-online.org>, <cazino-vulcan-slot.net>, <cazino-vulcan-slot.org>, <vol-kano.com>, <vulcan-azart-game.com>, <vulcanazartgame.com>, <vulcan-casino-slot.net>, <vulcan-cazino.online>, <vulcan-cazino-online.net>, <vulcan-cazino-online.org>, <vulcan-club-cazino.com>, <vulcan-kazino.org>,<vul-kan.club>, <vulkan-kasino-online.net>, <vylcan-game.com>, <vylcangame.com>, and vylcangames.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

The Complaint is denied as to the Domain Names <cazino-vulcan-slot.online> and <fun-vulcan-game.com>.

Karen Fong
Sole Panelist
Date: July 17, 2020