Games-pragmaticplay.com

The timeline behind games-pragmaticplay.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 Tamaris (Gibraltar) Limited v. riyat habiboglu, ricci.work Case No. D2026-0390 1. The Parties The Complainant is Tamaris (Gibraltar) Limited, Gibraltar, United Kingdom, represented by Wiley Rein LLP, United States of America (“United States”). The Respondent is riyat habiboglu, ricci.work, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <games-pragmaticplay.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 29, 2026. On January 30, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 30, 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 (REGISTRATION PRIVATE) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 2, 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 February 7, 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 February 12, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 4, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 6, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 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 According to information in the Complaint, the Complainant is a company formed in Gibraltar, United Kingdom, being a leading provider of mobile and desktop casino games for the online gaming industry, having a license from the Gibraltar Licensing Authority to develop and supply games since 2018. The Complainant is the registered owner of a number of trademarks, including the following: - the United States Registration No. 7330411 for PRAGMATIC PLAY (word), registered on March 19, 2024, for goods in international class 9; - the European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 017891041 for PRAGMATICPLAY (word), registered on September 1, 2018, for goods and services in international classes 9 and 41; and, - the European Union Trade Mark No. 018768214 for PRAGMATIC PLAY (figurative), registered on January 10, 2023, for goods and services in international classes 9, 28 and 41. The Complainant has been the registrant of the domain name <pragmaticplay.com> since October 29, 2014, which it uses for its official website to offer its gaming services. The Complainant has also registered the domain name <pragmaticplay.net> since September 2, 2015, which redirects to its official website. The disputed domain name was registered on July 19, 2025 and according to the uncontested evidence with the Complaint, it resolves to a login page requesting username and password, displaying the Complainant’s PRAGMATIC PLAY trademark and logo, and redirecting to other domain names that include claimed counterfeit games of the Complainant (e.g. the games SWEET BONANZA, SUGAR RUSH, and GATES OF OLYMPUS for which the Complainant also holds trademark registrations). 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 incorporates the Complainant’s PRAGMATIC PLAY trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the descriptive term “games”, and that the addition of “games” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from its trademark, because the term is merely descriptive in the context of the Complainant’s services of providing online games. As regards the second element, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s content, nor is it authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not making a bona fide commercial use of the disputed domain name; he is instead attempting to pass himself off as the Complainant, as the Respondent registered a domain name incorporating the entirety of the Complainant’s PRAGMATIC PLAY trademark, and is using the disputed domain name as a game-launch URL, enabling users to access counterfeit versions of the Complainant’s games directly through browsers or third-party launchers. Such use falsely suggests that the website and the games offered there are officially associated with, endorsed by, or operated by the Complainant, when in fact no such relationship exists. page 3 With respect to the third element, the Complainant submits that the Respondent clearly had knowledge of the PRAGMATIC PLAY trademark of the Complainant, both because the PRAGMATIC PLAY trademark has been in use for many years and has developed significant goodwill, and also because of the Respondent’s choice to pair the term with the “games” element, a product and/or service which the Complainant offers. As regards the use, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that publishes counterfeit versions of games that the Complainant offers, and that such use of counterfeit or stolen content gives the misleading impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant, and indicates that the Respondent is seeking to attract visitors for his own financial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel is required to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and also that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. Since the Respondent’s mailing address is stated to be in Ukraine, which is subject to an international conflict at the date of this Decision that may impact case notification, it is appropriate for the Panel to consider, in accordance with its discretion under paragraph 10 of the Rules, whether the proceeding should continue. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Panel is of the view that it should. There is no suggestion before the Panel that notification of the Complaint did not reach the Respondent, for example the notifications sent via it s email revealed by the Registrar appear as successfully sent. The Panel also notes that the Complainant has specified in the Complaint that any challenge made by the Respondent to any decision to transfer or cancel the disputed domain name shall be referred to the jurisdiction of the Courts at the location of the principal office of the concerned registrar, in this case the United States. It is moreover noted that, for the reasons which are set out later in this Decision, the Panel has no serious doubt (albeit in the absence of any Response) that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith and with the intention of unfairly targeting the Complainant’s goodwill in its trademarks. The Panel concludes that the Parties have been given a fair opportunity to present their case, and so that the administrative proceedings take place with due expedition the Panel will proceed to a Decision accordingly. The applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”, and the Panel can draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.2. Concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.3. To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. page 4 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. This first element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the trademark PRAGMATIC PLAY for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. As regards the second limb of the first element, the test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. It has also long been held that generic Top-Level Domains are generally disregarded when evaluating the confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a trademark. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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, “games” and a hyphen) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term 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. The Panel finds that the trademark PRAGMATIC PLAY of the Complainant is a distinctive term, closely connected with the Complainant, and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant also contends that it has not licensed, permitted, or authorized the Respondent to use the trademark PRAGMATIC PLAY. 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. According to unrebutted evidence in the case file, the disputed domain name resolves to a login page requesting username and password, displaying the Complainant’s PRAGMATIC PLAY trademark and logo, giving the impression that the website is put up by the Complainant. It also redirects to other domain names page 5 that include claimed counterfeit games of the Complainant (e.g. the games SWEET BONANZA, SUGAR RUSH, and GATES OF OLYMPUS for which the Complainant also holds trademark registrations). Such use of the disputed domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the first circumstance of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, soliciting login credentials for the claimed purpose of passing off or other type of fraud), can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of the term “games”, which pertains to the Complainant’s services, coupled with its use as shown by the Complainant and not rebutted by the Respondent, signals the Respondent’s intention of taking unfair advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant. The disputed domain name is not derived from the Respondent’s name. Nor is there any suggestion of some other name by which the Respondent is commonly known from which the disputed domain name could be derived. Therefore, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name in the meaning of the second circumstance of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Moreover, the use of the disputed domain name is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as contemplated by the third circumstance of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. 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. 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 3.1, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel finds that the evidence in the case shows the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name was registered some years after the Complainant had obtained registration of its PRAGMATIC PLAY trademarks, and according to evidence with the Complaint, the Complainant’s trademarks have acquired substantial recognition in the field. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and includes the term “games” which pertains to the Complainant’s industry. The website at the disputed domain name displays the Complainant’s logo. Under these circumstances, the Panel considers that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark and that it targeted that trademark. As regards the use of the disputed domain name, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has direct bearing to the present case: “(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the said website location or of a product or service on that website location.” The conduct of the Respondent falls under the above provisions. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PRAGMATIC PLAY trademark of the Complainant. The website to which the disputed domain name redirects offers services similar to those of the Complainant, including offering claimed counterfeit versions of the Complainant’s games whose names are also registered trademarks of the Complainant. Internet users will likely be confused as to the source of the products or services offered on such website. In the Panel’s view, the circumstances of the page 6 case represent evidence of registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain name. The Respondent failed to bring evidence to the contrary. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, soliciting login credentials for the claimed purpose of passing off or other type of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 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 <games-pragmaticplay.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Mihaela Maravela/ Mihaela Maravela Sole Panelist Date: March 18, 2026

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