Duel in India: Register, Domain and Payment Evidence Check

Two records, one brand, and a licence label that does not match

A brand file starts to look unsettled the moment two documents describe the same company in two different ways, and that is exactly the position on record here. The current Anjouan register entry, read on 2026-08-23, binds licence ALSI-202411026-FI1 to Immortal Snail LLC and to the host duel.com, and shows validity running through 2026-11-03. A separate independent listing identifies the same legal entity behind the brand, but attaches a Curacao label to it. Both statements cannot be a current description of the licensing position at the same time, so the mismatch is disclosed here rather than smoothed away.

What was established about India, and what was not

No exact current India authorization was established for this specific entity/domain combination in the captured official sources. That sentence is the whole of the local finding, and it should not be stretched in either direction. This is an unresolved local-status finding, not proof that authorization does not exist; foreign authorization is jurisdiction-specific.

The Indian reference point held in the ledger is MeitY's Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act 2025 and notifications hub, preserved for this scope as the current Act and notification hub, with legal review required. It is a statutory and notification source, not a brand register, so it will not confirm or deny any single operator by name. Reading it tells you which central rules and notifications are live; it does not tell you where a particular offshore brand sits within them. Your own state position matters as well, which is covered in our state-level legal context notes and in the summary of the central 2026 online money games framework.

What a foreign licence can carry, and what it cannot

The Anjouan entry is a primary record from the issuing register, and it is worth reading in full rather than in summary. It supports three things: a named legal entity, a licence reference, and a bound domain, each as shown on the date of capture. It does not travel. An authorisation granted in one jurisdiction is an arrangement between that issuer and that licensee, and it creates no permission in India, no consumer remedy under Indian law and no supervisory relationship with any Indian authority.

Where a foreign record genuinely helps an Indian reader is identity. If a payment descriptor, an email footer or a corporate reference later mentions Immortal Snail LLC, the register gives you an independent place where that name already appears in connection with the brand. If a site that presents the same branding names a completely different company, that gap is the finding worth noting. The reasoning pattern is set out in our offshore licence evidence guide, and the reverse claim, where an offshore brand implies Indian permission, is handled in the no-India-licence claim check.

The domain question: duel.com is the host the register binds

Domain identity is the part of this file that is cleanest, so it is worth using. The register entry read on 2026-08-23 binds the licence reference to duel.com and to no other host. Anything else that carries the same colours and wordmark is unverified until the same register shows it: a hyphenated variant, an added country word, a different extension, a shortened link inside a message, or an APK offered outside an official store listing.

That single anchor is enough to run a practical check without trusting marketing material. Type the host yourself instead of following a forwarded link. Compare the string character by character, including the extension. Note that a valid certificate, a polished layout and a responsive chat window prove only that someone built a working website. Where an app is involved, the package name and the source of the installer matter more than the icon, which is the trap described in our fake gaming app and APK warning and in the wider notes on fake apps and phishing.

Reading the independent listings without upgrading them

Two independent listings sit in the ledger. Gamblers Connect identifies Immortal Snail LLC for the brand while carrying a Curacao label that conflicts with the current register, and Casinos.org supplies a second independent identification of the same brand-and-company relationship. Neither is a regulator, neither issues or withdraws a licence, and neither establishes authorisation in India. They are independent context that happens to agree on the corporate name, which is the one point where agreement is meaningful.

Used that way, they raise confidence in identity and leave the licensing question to the issuer's register. Used carelessly, the Curacao label becomes a second-hand fact that overrides a primary record, which is the specific error this file is built to avoid. Our methodology notes explain how source roles are separated before anything is written, and the same separation drives the India licence-check walkthrough.

Payments: what an Indian money trail can actually prove

Because the local-status question stays open, the strongest records an Indian reader can create are their own payment records. A UPI or bank trail does not settle legality, and nothing in the ledger describes any deposit route, withdrawal timing or verification outcome for this brand. What a trail does prove is that a specific amount left a specific account at a specific time and reached a specific named beneficiary. That is the material every grievance channel asks for first, and it is the material that quietly disappears if you wait.

The beneficiary string is the field people overlook. When the name shown against a gaming payment is an unrelated firm, an individual, or a payment intermediary that does not match any company you were told about, that gap belongs in your file exactly as it appeared, without correction or paraphrase. Our guides on UPI merchant name mismatch evidence, UTR and withdrawal evidence and collect-request risk in gaming apps cover the capture steps in detail.

An evidence-preservation checklist you can finish today

1. Screenshot the register entry for licence ALSI-202411026-FI1 with the URL bar and system date visible, then save the page as PDF.
2. Screenshot both independent listings the same way, so the Curacao label mismatch is preserved as you found it rather than as you remember it.
3. Download the full bank or UPI statement for the period as a PDF, not as cropped images.
4. Record every UTR or RRN in a plain text or spreadsheet file, one row per transaction, with amounts and timestamps.
5. Copy the beneficiary and VPA strings character for character, including spacing and abbreviations.
6. Note the exact host you typed and the exact host that finally loaded, along with any redirect you noticed.
7. If an app is involved, record the package name and where the installer came from; do not reinstall over it first.
8. Keep original files unedited in one dated folder, and work only on copies.
9. Write a short dated timeline of what happened, marking clearly which entries are your own recollection.
10. Store one backup outside the phone used for the transactions.

Continue via our tracked link

Where a complaint involving this brand can go in India

Routing matters more than volume, and the correct channel depends on what went wrong. Where money left an account through fraud or unauthorised use, the financial cyber-fraud route is time sensitive and should not wait for a support reply; the steps sit in our guide to 1930 and the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal and in the notes on unauthorised UPI gaming payments.

Where the failure is a regulated payment-system entity mishandling your grievance, the sequence starts with a written complaint to the bank or provider and escalates through the RBI CMS complaint route. Where the dispute is service-related rather than criminal, the boundary is explained in consumer complaint versus cybercrime. A suspicious website itself can be raised through the suspect gaming website check, and general routing is collected on our report and complain hub. If play has stopped being a choice, stop play and get help lists Indian support options.

Dated source ledger for this file

Every row below was read on 2026-08-23 and is stored with its role and tier, because the role decides how much weight a row can carry. Nothing else was used, and nothing was inferred to fill a gap.

What would move this finding away from amber

The signal here is amber on open evidence, and it is honest about why. A green reading would need current primary evidence attaching Indian authorisation to this precise entity and domain pairing, which the captured sources do not contain. A red reading would need an official adverse record, or corroborated documented evidence of harm, and neither exists in the ledger. Absence of a captured local match is not proof that no permission exists anywhere.

Three developments would change the file. First, a primary Indian record naming the entity or the bound host, which would settle the local question in one direction or the other. Second, a fresh reading of the issuer's register after 2026-11-03, since a validity date shown today says nothing about renewal. Third, resolution of the jurisdiction label, either by an updated independent listing or by a register change. Until then, treat the position as open, keep your own records intact, and see the operator research backlog for what is queued next.

anjouangaming.com

Frequently asked questions