The practice of cloning websites in the online gambling industry

The phenomenon of cloned websites has ceased to be solely an intellectual property issue, evolving into a growing concern within the online gambling industry, with significant legal, reputational, and commercial implications for licensed operators.

by Ana-Maria Baciu, Managing Partner & Cosmin Todirașcu, Associate at BACIU Partners

Cosmin Todirașcu, Associate la BACIU Partners

Ana-Maria Baciu, Managing Partner BACIU Partners

The issue extends beyond protecting trademark rights or those arising from holding a gambling license. Its

effects are most acutely felt in terms of player protection and combating the unregulated, “black market” segment.

A cloned website creates the appearance of a licensed entity, undermining the core objectives of gambling legislation by directing players to an unregulated environment, which lacks legal safeguards such as protection of minors, transaction security, personal data protection, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing measures, fairness of games, and more.

What cloning a webiste actually entails

Essentially, the practice consists of closely replicating the visual identity, structure, content, and branding elements of a licensed operator, using a distinct but sufficiently similar domain name to achieve the intended effect: misleading users by exploiting the reputation and trust associated with the original brand.

In many cases, identifying the person behind the domain requires formal procedures, as registration data is often limited or anonymized.

Legal tools available to operators 

The digital environment often provides a layer of anonymity for perpetrators, making it difficult for operators to identify the individuals behind a cloned domain, which necessitates initiating formal legal procedures whose effectiveness may have certain limitations.

1. UDRP Procedure before WIPO

Currently, the most practical and efficient solution for regaining control over a digital identity remains filing a complaint under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Arbitration Center.

To succeed, the complainant must demonstrate: (i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to their trademark, (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain, and (iii) that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.

In the online gambling industry, these conditions are often met when a cloned site reproduces the visual identity and exploits the reputation of the licensed operator.

The practical advantage of the UDRP lies in its design for the fast-paced digital environment, where speed of response is critical. Unlike court actions, which often involve significant time and unpredictable costs, WIPO arbitration provides a definitive solution in approximately 60 days, with predictable and fixed costs—typically USD 1,500 for a package of up to five domain names, in addition to legal fees for representation.

A major strategic advantage is its self-executing nature: once the decision to transfer the domain to the trademark holder is issued and not challenged—which is usually the case in practice—the transfer is implemented directly by the domain registrar. Additionally, initiating the procedure can lead to the disclosure of the registrant’s declared data, facilitating potential further actions.

cloning websites

2. Trademark infringement action

If the registrant’s identity is known, the affected operator can bring a trademark infringement action before the ordinary courts to protect the exclusive rights to the mark and seek compensation. Alternatively, an interim measure through a preliminary injunction can be requested, allowing for an accelerated process and provisional relief. However, the judicial procedure remains complex, requiring substantial evidence regarding the illicit act, fault, and the extent of the damage.

The main challenge in such court proceedings is often the limited access to the actual registrant data, which can complicate the action.

3. Criminal complaint

În anumite circumstante, faptele pot întruni elementele constitutive ale unor infractiuni, precum înselaciunea sau frauda informatica. Cu toate acestea, procedura penala este, în practica, de durata si nu ofera o solutie imediata.

4. Reporting to the National Gambling Office

Reporting to the National Gambling Office (“ONJN”) represents another available option and can serve as a complementary step in such cases. While the regulatory authority has a dedicated channel for reporting such incidents, its practical effectiveness is often limited. In practice, the regulator has expressed concerns regarding the potential impact that blacklisting a domain name (including one that contains a licensed brand) might have on the operator’s license.

Thus, although reporting to ONJN remains a formally available tool, in practice it does not always ensure a prompt and effective resolution for removing a cloned website.

Conclusion 

Cloned websites are not merely an attack on a brand—they represent a mechanism by which the unregulated market infiltrates a highly regulated sector. Beyond reputational damage or commercial losses, the real risk lies in diverting players to an unregulated environment.

A range of legal avenues is avaialbe to operators to counter this phenomenon, with some, such as the UDRP procedure before WIPO, offering rapid and effective remedies. However, these address immediate effects rather than the structural cause. Combating this issue requires a consistent, integrated approach, where brand protection is part of a broader objective: maintaining a safe, transparent, and compliant gaming environment, for the benefit of both players and the regulated market as a whole.