iGaming in the Crosshairs: How to Protect Against Cybersquatters and What UDRP Has to Do With It

31.08.2026

The iGaming industry operates in a way that most businesses simply are not used to: a single operator may have dozens of active mirror sites at the same time, while the domain that once received all the traffic can disappear overnight following a regulatory block.

For a traditional business, this would look like a catastrophe. For betting and online casinos, however, it is often just part of the daily operating reality. This very feature makes iGaming brands particularly attractive targets for cybersquatters.

Cybersquatting is the registration of a domain name that infringes another party's trademark rights, usually with the aim of intercepting traffic or otherwise harming the trademark owner. In iGaming, this is rarely accidental. More often, it involves deliberate brand cloning: phishing mirrors, fake "affiliate" websites, typosquatted domains, and look-alike domains registered just days before a major tournament, when traffic associated with the brand is at its peak.

One effective out-of-court mechanism for combating this is the UDRP procedure. In this article, REVERA Law Group lawyers Kamal Tserakhau and Hleb Shumilau explain how it works.

What Is UDRP?

UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) is an international out-of-court procedure for resolving domain name disputes, developed by ICANN and applicable to domains in popular zones such as .com, .net, .org, as well as a number of other gTLDs and new gTLDs. By registering a domain in these zones, the domain holder automatically agrees to have disputes considered under the UDRP framework.

Cases are handled by accredited dispute resolution providers, including WIPO, the ADR Forum, and others. Compared with traditional litigation, the process is relatively fast: from filing a complaint to a decision, it typically takes around 45–60 days. For iGaming businesses, where every day that a look-alike domain remains online can result in lost traffic and reputational damage, this difference can be critical.

Stages of the Procedure

 

• filing a complaint with an accredited dispute resolution provider, online or by email;
• implementation of a registrar lock, preventing the domain from being modified, transferred, or deleted;
• notification of the respondent, who generally has 20 days to submit a response;
• appointment of an arbitration panel consisting of either one or three panelists;
• issuance of a decision, generally within 14 days, ordering the cancellation or transfer of the domain, or rejecting the complaint;
• a 10-day period during which the decision may be challenged in court, after which it may be implemented by the registrar.

Three Requirements for Winning a UDRP Case

For a complaint seeking cancellation or transfer of a domain to the trademark owner to succeed, the complainant must establish all three of the following:

1. the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark;
2. the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
3. the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

In practice, the third element is often the most difficult to establish. This is where brand recognition can turn from an abstract marketing asset into a concrete legal argument.

Brand Recognition as a Key to Success

Unlike traditional court proceedings, under the UDRP it is not enough for the complainant simply to own a registered trademark. The panel must be satisfied that the respondent knew of the brand and deliberately selected the domain name in order to take advantage of the reputation associated with it.

UDRP practice has developed several indicators that can help establish such awareness:

Widespread recognition of the brand. A well-known operator's name — in the same way that brands such as Google, Apple, or Samsung are recognized in other industries — can support an inference that the respondent was aware of the trademark. Registration of a highly similar domain without a credible explanation may therefore strongly indicate bad faith.

Similarity of business activities. If the respondent's website offers sports betting, slots, or casino services — the same services provided by the complainant — this may directly indicate an attempt to commercially exploit the complainant's reputation rather than a coincidence.

Scale and geographic presence. A long-standing market presence, licenses in multiple jurisdictions, and an active audience on social media can strengthen the argument that the respondent could not reasonably have been unaware of the complainant's trademark.
Distinctiveness of the mark. iGaming operators often operate under coined or non-dictionary names. The more distinctive and original the trademark, the harder it is for the respondent to argue that the domain was selected by coincidence.

When Brand Recognition Is Not Enough

UDRP practice also includes cases where even a formally similar domain was not transferred to the complainant. A common reason is the failure to prove that sufficient reputation had been established before the domain was registered.

This is particularly relevant for iGaming businesses. An operator licensed in one jurisdiction and known primarily in a local market may not always be able to demonstrate that a respondent in another country was objectively aware of its brand. A national license and local brand recognition do not automatically extend to other markets — just as, under the principle of territoriality, a trademark registered in one country does not generally provide automatic protection in another.

For this reason, trademark owners should proactively collect and preserve evidence of brand recognition, including publications in industry media, website traffic and deposit statistics, player reviews, and the history of trademark registrations across the jurisdictions in which the business operates.

Trademark Registration: The Foundation of Protection

The first of the three UDRP requirements — identity or confusing similarity between the domain and the trademark — makes trademark registration more than a mere formality. It is a fundamental prerequisite for effective protection.

For an operator entering a new market or launching a new brand, it is advisable to register the trademark before a need arises to challenge infringing domains, rather than after the fact.

We handle trademark registration and domain name disputes as part of a single process: the earlier rights in a brand are secured, the faster and more confidently any subsequent dispute can be addressed.

Practical Brand Protection Checklist for iGaming

 

• register the trademark in advance in all jurisdictions where the business operates or plans to operate;
• continuously monitor domains similar to the brand, including typosquatting variations and newly launched domain extensions;
• collect and preserve evidence of brand recognition, including media coverage, traffic statistics, and social media activity;
• document patterns of bad-faith use — phishing, copied website designs, and false claims of affiliation — as soon as they are identified;
• do not delay filing a complaint: the longer a fraudulent domain remains active, the more traffic, revenue, and player trust it may divert.
• A look-alike domain in iGaming is not an abstract reputational risk. It is a channel through which traffic may be leaking right now. UDRP provides an opportunity to shut down that channel within a matter of months, but this mechanism works most effectively when trademark rights have been secured in advance and evidence of brand recognition has been collected before it is needed in a dispute.

 

---

Kamal Tserakhau / k.tserakhau@revera.legal
Hleb Shumilau / h.shumilau@revera.legal