Pokeristf.com

The timeline behind pokeristf.com

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

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 Kamagames Entertainment Group Limited v. Pingping Yang Case No. D2026-0200 1. The Parties The Complainant is Kamagames Entertainment Group Limited, Isle of Man, United Kingdom, represented by Kosnahan Law, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Pingping Yang, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <pokeristf.com> is registered with NameMart Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 17, 2026. On January 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 20, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 20, 2026, 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 amended Complaint on January 23, 2026. 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 January 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 16, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 18, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Christiane Féral -Schuhl as the sole panelist in this matter on February 25, 2026. 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 a company incorporated in the Isle of Man, United Kingdom, that operates software and mobile applications in the social gaming market, offering games with casino themes, and products such as mobile Poker, casino slot games, Roulette, 8 Ball and more. The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks (“the POKERIST.COM Trademarks”) including the following: - The UnitedKingdom wordmark POKERIST.COM No UK00910675627, registered on June 15, 2012, for products and services in classes 9, 25, 38, and 41 - The European Union wordmark POKERIST.COM No 010675627, registered on June 15, 2012, for products and services in classes 9, 25, 38, and 41 - The Chinese wordmark POKERIST.COM No 10518748, registered on April 21, 2013, for products and services in class 9. The Complainant offered social casino games under its POKERIST.COM Trademarks on multiple platforms online, such as Google Play Store, in over 33 languages. The disputed domain name was registered on December 19, 2025, and was used to direct users to third party online gambling or casino website, competing products and services to those 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 name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its POKERIST.COM Trademarks, since the disputed domain name contains the trademark in its entirety. The Complainant adds that the mere addition of a single non-distinctive letter “f” does nothing to minimize the risk of confusion for potential customers associating the disputed domain name with the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the use of a random letter after its well-known trademark is strongly evocative of typosquatting. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant explains that the Respondent is neither a licensee of the Complainant, nor does it have any association, connection or affiliation with the Complainant, its brand or its approved licensor whatsoever. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered more than 12 years after the registration of the POKERIST.COM Trademarks and that the Respondent does not own any registered trademark identical or similar to that of the Complainant. The Complainant adds that the Respondent does not provide bona fide offering of goods and services, nor does it make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, considering that the website accessible from the disputed domain name diverts Internet users to pages for counterfeit services which compete with those of the Complainant. page 3 Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith by the Respondent. First, the Complainant states that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name more than twelve years after the registration of the POKERIST.COM Trademarks. The Complainant considers that the use of typosquatting to attract Internet users to the website at the disputed domain name is clear evidence of bad faith registration. The Complainant considers that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks and that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to lead the public to a website offering betting and gaming services which compete with those of the Complainant, for commercial gain. 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 disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, the letter “f”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition of such letter does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 that 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 3.1, section 2.1. page 4 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 disputed 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 disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Indeed, it appears that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any permission to use the POKERIST.COM Trademarks in the disputed domain name. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Finally, it appears that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, given that the disputed domain name directed Internet users to pages which compete with the Complainant even though the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's trademark in its entirety. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name after the registration of the POKERIST.COM Trademarks. The Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent had the POKERIST.COM Trademarks in mind when registering the disputed domain name, considering the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety except for a single added letter. The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name resolved to slot games competing those of the Complainant. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation, in a likely attempt of taking unfair advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks and to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, which constitutes bad faith under 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 <pokeristf.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Christiane Féral-Schuhl/ Christiane Féral-Schuhl Sole Panelist Date: March 10, 2026

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