Slots-temple-uk.com

The timeline behind slots-temple-uk.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 Digital Division Limited v. Yaroslav Kariakin, meble TOV Case No. D2026-0672 1. The Parties The Complainant is Digital Division Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Briffa Legal Limited, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Yaroslav Kariakin, meble TOV, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <slots-temple-uk.com> is registered with CNOBIN Information Technology Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 17, 2026. On February 17, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 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 February 23, 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 March 2, 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 March 3, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 23, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 24, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Jonas Gulliksson as the sole panelist in this matter on April 1, 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. Further Procedural Considerations 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. The Panel has reached this conclusion in part because the Panel does not believe the Respondent’s purported mailing address in Ukraine to be genuine. The Panel notes that the courier was not able to deliver the Written Notice to the address which the Respondent had provided in Ukraine due to the Respondent being absent. The Panel also considered that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint were delivered to the Respondent’s email address provided by the Registrar, although no notification was sent by the destination server. It is furthermore noted that, for the reasons which are set out later in this Decision, the Panel has no doubt 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 trademark in an effort to confuse consumers. 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. 5. Factual Background The Complainant is a company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales. The Complainant was incorporated on May 5, 2015 with the purpose of providing online gaming and gambling websites. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations, which include inter alia: - United States of America trademark registration No 7,475,600 for the mark SLOTS TEMPLE (fig.) (registered on August 13, 2024). Furthermore, according to the Complainant, they have experienced considerable success in the marketplace under its SLOTS TEMPLE mark and that this mark is subsequently well-known. The Complainant also operates its official website at the domain name <slotstemple.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on July 11, 2024. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website featuring the Complainant’s trademark and offering online slot games and casinos. page 3 6. 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. First, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is visually, phonetically and conceptually similar to the Complainant’s SLOTS TEMPLE mark. In this respect, the Complainant argues that it is well established that the mere addition of a descriptive or generic term does not prevent a finding of similarity. The Complainant further maintains that a substantial proportion of Internet users who reach the Respondent’s website are likely to have initially searched for the Complainant’s SLOTS TEMPLE trademark via an online search engine or attempted to access the Complainant’s website by direct navigation. Secondly, the Complainant asserts that it has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge and belief, the Respondent has no rights in, and has never been authorized to use, the Complainant’s SLOTS TEMPLE mark. According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s only interest in the disputed domain name is to divert traffic away from the Complainant and to engage in unlawful activities such as phishing. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves appears to be offering goods originating from the Complainant, even though the Respondent has not been authorized to use the SLOTS TEMPLE mark and has never been an authorized seller of the Complainant’s goods. To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge and belief, the Respondent (whether as an individual, business or other organization) has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Thirdly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, primarily to disrupt the Complainant’s business by diverting potential customers to the Respondent’s website. In this regard, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent had the SLOTS TEMPLE mark in mind when registering the disputed domain name, as evidenced by the alleged use of the Complainant’s logo on the associated website. The Complainant also asserts that the SLOTS TEMPLE mark is well known and enjoys a reputation, such that the Respondent likely knew or should have known of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration. Additionally, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that is visually similar to the Complainant’s own website and appears to offer goods identical to those offered by the Complainant under its trademarks. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 7. 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. page 4 Although the addition of other terms here, “UK”, 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. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation, 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 constitute bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 8. 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 <slots-temple-uk.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Jonas Gulliksson/ Jonas Gulliksson Sole Panelist Date: April 15, 2026

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