Novomatic AG v Evgeniy Pahlov, NC

WIPO Case No. D2025-2764

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Novomatic AG v. Evgeniy Pahlov, NC

Case No. D2025-2764

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Novomatic AG, Austria, represented by Salomonowitz Attorneys-at-Law, Austria.

The Respondent is Evgeniy Pahlov, NC, Thailand.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bookofradeluxes.site> (the “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 July 14, 2025. On July 14, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 14, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 16, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar. The Center noted that there was a technical error in the Complaint and invited the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 16, 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 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 6, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 7, 2025.

The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on August 18, 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant offers an online casino game under a mark consisting of the words “BOOK OF RA” (the
“BOOK OF RA Mark”). The Complainant has held trademark registrations for the BOOK OF RA Mark in
various jurisdictions since 2005 for goods and services including casino games including European Union

Trade Mark registration No. 004451431 registered since May 23, 2005.

The Domain Name was registered on July 4, 2025. The Domain Name resolves to a website (the
“Respondent’s Website”) that purports to offer an online casino game under the BOOK OF RA mark in direct

competition with the Complainant’s online casino games offered from its website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that:

a)	It is the owner of the BOOK OF RA Mark, having registered the BOOK OF RA Mark in the European Union. The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the BOOK OF RA Mark as it merely adds the descriptive term “deluxes” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.site” to the Mark.
b)

There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. OF RA Mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the BOOK OF RA 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 Complainant for commercial gain by purporting to offer gaming services in direct competition with the Complainant under the Complainant’s BOOK OF RA 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 Complainant 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 Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“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.

page 3

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 terms here, “deluxes”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such a term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the 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.

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 BOOK OF RA 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.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

page 4

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 BOOK OF RA 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 BOOK OF RA Mark 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 BOOK OF RA Mark which it has held for almost 20 years.

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 BOOK OF RA 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.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 disputed domain name <bookofradeluxes.site> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Nicholas Smith/
Nicholas Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: August 22, 2025