Admiraloficial.com, Admiralslotonline.com, Casinoadmiral-de.com

The timeline behind admiraloficial.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Novomatic AG v. Franciszek Kucharski Case No. D2025-0755 1. The Parties The Complainant is Novomatic AG, Austria, represented by Salomonowitz Attorneys-at-Law, Austria. The Respondent is Franciszek Kucharski, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <admiraloficial.com>, <admiralslotonline.com>, and <casinoadmiral-de.com> are registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 24, 2025. On February 25, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 26, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 26, 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 amendment to the Complaint on February 26, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 February 28, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 20, 2025. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on March 10, 2025. The Center informed the Parties about the commencement of panel appointment process on March 24, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on March 27, 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 is an Austrian casino operator. The Complainant owns various ADMIRAL trademarks, including European Union trademark No. 004134433 registered on August 14, 2006. The disputed domain names were registered on December 6, 2024 (<casinoadmiral-de.com>), January 16, 2025 (<admiraloficial.com>), and January 20, 2025 (<admiralslotonline.com>), and at the time of filing of the Complaint directed to websites advertising an app-based online casino purportedly offering games of the Complainant. 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 disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondent has not submitted a substantive reply to the Complainant’s contentions, however, sent an email to the Center on March 10, 2025, expressing interest in resolving the dispute amicably and stating, inter alia, “... I sincerely regret any unintended infringement and want to assure you that I take this matter very seriously. As soon as I became aware of the issue, I took immediate action and have already blocked and discontinued the use of the domains in question. Moving forward, I have implemented stricter internal policies to ensure compliance and prevent any similar occurrences...”. 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 disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. 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 Complainant’s trademark ADMIRAL is reproduced within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. page 3 Although the addition of other terms (here “oficial”, “slotonline”, and “casino[admiral]-de”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. The Panel finds that 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 that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. 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 disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademark, coupled with the use of the disputed domain names to resolve to websites advertising an online casino purportedly offering games of the Complainant, does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the circumstances of this case, including the composition and use of the disputed domain names incorporating the Complainant’s mark together with the terms “oficial”, “slotonline”, and “casino[admiral]-de”, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain names. The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. Having reviewed the available record, and noting the composition of the disputed domain names, under the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain names to purportedly operate an app-based online casino supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 4 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 names <admiraloficial.com>, <admiralslotonline.com>, and <casinoadmiral- de.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Tobias Zuberbühler/ Tobias Zuberbühler Sole Panelist Date: April 2, 2025

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.