Novomatic-games.com, Novomatic-online.com

The timeline behind novomatic-games.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. Antony Shark Case No. D2026-0780 1. The Parties Complainant is Novomatic AG, Austria, represented by Salomonowitz Attorneys-at-Law, Austria. Respondent is Antony Shark, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <novomatic-games.com> and <novomatic-online.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, 2026. On February 24, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 25, 2026, 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 (The RDAP server redacted the value, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on February 26, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 26, 2026. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 19, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 20, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on March 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 Complainant is a company organized under the laws of Austria that is active in the gaming industry. Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registered owner of various trademarks relating to its company name and brand NOVOMATIC, inter alia, but not limited to, the following: - Word trademark NOVOMATIC, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Registration number: 005711461, registration date: February 8, 2002, status: active; and - Word trademark NOVOMATIC, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Registration number: 1839246, registration date: June 14, 1994, status: active. Moreover, Complainant has demonstrated to own the domain name <novomatic.com> which resolves to Complainant’s official website at “www.novomatic.com”, that is used to promote Complainant’s products and services in the gaming industry worldwide. Respondent, according to the Registrar verification, is located in China. The disputed domain names were both registered on January 13, 2026; they resolve to similar websites at “www.novomatic-games.com” and “www.novomatic-online.com”, respectively, which (1) purport to be operated by Complainant, (2) prominently display Complainant’s NOVOMATIC trademark and logo, and (3) allegedly offer to register for and login at an official “Novomatic” gaming platform and to download an official “Novomatic” app, inviting users to enjoy enhanced performance, exclusive bonuses, and easy access to “Novomatic” games. Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred to Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. Notably, Complainant contends that it is ranked Austria’s second most valuable brand, and that its NOVOMATIC brand is well-known. Complainant submits, without further reasoning, that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s NOVOMATIC trademark. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names since (1) Respondent has no relationship with or permission from Complainant to use its NOVOMATIC trademark, (2) Respondent has neither been commonly known by the disputed domain names or the NOVOMATIC sign, nor has Respondent acquired any respective trademark rights, and (3) Respondent uses the disputed domain names to offer infringing slot and casino games and to provide illegal gambling, by linking to an illegal casino website. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith since (1) Respondent registered the latter long after Complainant registered its respective trademarks and installed its official website, (2) the websites under the disputed domain names are used to offer infringing games and to provide illegal gambling, designed to mislead Complainant’s customers, and (3) the disputed domain names are used to offer counterfeited versions of Complainant’s goods and services. page 3 B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving: (i) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Respondent's default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar First, 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 Complainant’s NOVOMATIC trademark and the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of its NOVOMATIC trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. Also, the entirety of such trademark is reproduced within each of the disputed domain names, simply added by the terms “games” or “online”, respectively, together with a hyphen. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are at least confusingly similar to Complainant’s NOVOMATIC trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “games” or “online”) 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 Complainant’s NOVOMATIC trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel, therefore, finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Second, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which 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 3.1, section 2.1. page 4 Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has not rebutted 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. In particular, Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s NOVOMATIC trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain names and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the term “novomatic” on its own. Rather, the disputed domain names resolve to similar websites at “www.novomatic-games.com” and “www.novomatic-online.com”, respectively, which (1) purport to be operated by Complainant, (2) prominently display Complainant’s NOVOMATIC trademark and logo, and (3) allegedly offer to register for and login at an official “Novomatic” gaming platform and to download an official “Novomatic” app, inviting users to enjoy enhanced performance, exclusive bonuses, and easy access to “Novomatic” games. Such use of the disputed domain names, therefore, neither qualifies as bona fide nor as legitimate noncommercial or fair within the meaning of the Policy. Finally, UDRP panels have long held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, Complainant’s impersonation) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel, therefore, finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Third, 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 circumstances of this case leave no doubt that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s rights in its NOVOMATIC trademark when registering the disputed domain names and that the latter are clearly directed thereto. Moreover, using the disputed domain names, which are at least confusingly similar to Complainant’s undisputedly well-known NOVOMATIC trademark, to run similar websites at “www.novomatic-games.com” and “www.novomatic-online.com”, respectively, which (1) purport to be operated by Complainant, (2) prominently display Complainant’s NOVOMATIC trademark and logo, and (3) allegedly offer to register for and login at an official “Novomatic” gaming platform and to download an official “Novomatic” app, inviting users to enjoy enhanced performance, exclusive bonuses, and easy access to “Novomatic” games, are clear indications that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s undisputedly well-known NOVOMATIC trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s websites. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Finally, UDRP panels have long held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, Complainant’s impersonation) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Panel, therefore, finds that the third element of the Policy has been established. page 5 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, <novomatic-games.com> and <novomatic-online.com>, be transferred to Complainant. /Stephanie G. Hartung/ Stephanie G. Hartung Sole Panelist Date: April 8, 2026

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