ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION DIMIDIUM AL LTD, HOLLYCORN NV v. Jacky Chan Case No. D2025-2465 1. The Parties The Complainants are DIMIDIUM AL LTD, Cyprus and HOLLYCORN NV, Curaçao, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), represented by Mapa Global Investments SL, Spain. The Respondent is Jacky Chan, Philippines. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 23, 2025. On June 23, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 23, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 4, 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 July 9, 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 July 9, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 29, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 30, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on August 12, 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 DIMIDIUM AL LTD is the registered owner of the trademark NEOSPIN (the “NEOSPIN Mark”) in the European Union for services in classes 35 and 41 (Registration No. 018786437 registered March 14, 2023). It licenses this mark to Complainant HOLLYCORN NV who since 2014 has operated an online casino from Complainants’ website at “www.neospin.com”. The Domain Name was registered on October 28, 2023. The Domain Name resolves to a website (the “Respondent’s Website”) that prominently reproduces the NEOSPIN Mark and purports to offer gaming and casino services in direct competition with the Complainants. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. Notably, the Complainants contend that: a) They are the owner of the NEOSPIN Mark, having registered the NEOSPIN Mark in the European Union. The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the NEOSPIN Mark as it reproduces the NEOSPIN Mark in its entirety. b) There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainants have not granted any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the NEOSPIN Mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the NEOSPIN Mark, nor does it use the Domain Name for a bona fide purpose or legitimate noncommercial purpose. Rather the Respondent is using the Domain Name to pass off as the Complainants for commercial gain by purporting to offer gaming services in direct competition with the Complainants under the Complainants’ NEOSPIN Mark. Such use is not a legitimate use of the Domain Name. c) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent is using the Domain Name to divert Internet users searching for the Complainants to the Respondent’s Website for commercial gain. Such conduct amounts to registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Consolidation: Multiple Complainants The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) provides at section 4.11.1, in respect of the issue of “Multiple complainants filing against a single respondent”, that:
page 3 “Paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules grants a panel the power to consolidate multiple domain name disputes. At the same time, paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP 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. In assessing whether a complaint filed by multiple complainants may be brought against a single respondent, panels look at whether (i) the complainants have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants in a similar fashion, and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation.” The present proceeding involves two Complainants bringing a single complaint against a common Respondent. The Complainants have made a request for consolidation and bear the onus of establishing that such a consolidation is justified. The Panel is satisfied, based on the material filed, that the Complainants have a specific common grievance against the Respondent, in that the Complainants have a common legal interest as related entities that hold and use the NEOSPIN Mark. The Panel has considered whether it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation. The Panel finds that it is equitable and procedurally efficient to grant the Complainants’ request for consolidation. For the remainder of the decision, the Panel will refer to the Complainants in the singular when appropriate. 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 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 Domain Name. Accordingly, the 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 term, here “66”, 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. 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). 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.
page 4 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 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 Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that: - before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made 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. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2. - the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3. - the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4. - the record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Domain Name. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to resolve to a webpage reproducing the Complainant’s NEOSPIN Mark and purporting to offer gaming and casino services in direct competition with the Complainant does not amount to use for a bona fide offering of goods and services. Rather, it appears that the purpose behind the Respondent’s Website is to encourage Internet users, under the impression that they are dealing with the Complainant, to utilize the gaming services purportedly offered by the Respondent, such conduct not being bona fide. 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. The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its reputation in the NEOSPIN Mark at the time the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent has provided no explanation, and neither it is immediately obvious, why an entity would register a domain name wholly incorporating the NEOSPIN Mark (which has been used for gaming services since 2014) and redirect it to a website purportedly offering gaming services under that mark unless there was an awareness of and an intention to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its NEOSPIN Mark. The Respondent’s Website purports to offer gaming services in direct competition with the Complainant. Noting the fact that the Respondent passes off as the Complainant on the Respondent’s Website and in the absence of any explanation for the registration, the Panel considers that the most likely explanation is that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the NEOSPIN Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s Website. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.
page 5 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 Name be transferred to the Complainant. /Nicholas Smith/ Nicholas Smith Sole Panelist Date: August 14, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy