Vegasnow-online.net + 14 more domains

The timeline behind vegasnow-online.net

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Razor Trade Corporation v. FlokiNET Ltd WhoisProtection FlokiNET Ltd WhoisProtection / FlokiNET Ltd / Volodymyr Kuzmenko / Михайло Панасюк / Domain Admin / Privacy Protect LLC PrivacyProtect org / Eugene Gonzales / Oleksandr Bashenko / Eleni Nikolaidis / Olivier FOURNIER / Matthias Walter Plomer / Epp Thomas Claim Number: FA2601002200796 PARTIES Complainant is Razor Trade Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Kamal Tserakhau of REVERA Polska sp. z o.o., Poland. Respondent is FlokiNET Ltd WhoisProtection FlokiNET Ltd WhoisProtection / FlokiNET Ltd / Volodymyr Kuzmenko / Михайло Панасюк / Domain Admin / Privacy Protect LLC PrivacyProtect org / Eugene Gonzales / Oleksandr Bashenko / Eleni Nikolaidis / Olivier FOURNIER / Matthias Walter Plomer / Epp Thomas ("Respondent"), Various Locations. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <vegasnow-online.net>, <vegas-now-casino.net>, <vegasnow-pokies.com>, <vegasnow-casino.co>, <vegasnow-online.com>, <casino-vegasnow.org>, <vegasnow-casino.org>, <vegasnowcasinoo.com>, <vegasaunow.com>, <vegasnow-play.com>, <vegasnow-australia.org>, <vegasnow.win>, <vegasnowcasino-au.com>, <casino-vegasnow.net>, and <vegasnow-casino-au.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp, URL Solutions, Inc., Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com, Gransy, s.r.o., Dynadot Inc and Tucows Domains Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Steven M. Levy as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 21, 2026; Forum received payment on January 21, 2026. On January 21, 22, and 26, 2026, Internet Domain Service BS Corp, URL Solutions, Inc., Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com, Gransy, s.r.o., Dynadot Inc and Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <vegasnow-online.net>, <vegas-now-casino.net>, <vegasnow-pokies.com>, <vegasnow-casino.co>, <vegasnow-online.com>, <casino-vegasnow.org>, <vegasnow-casino.org>, <vegasnowcasinoo.com>, <vegasaunow.com>, <vegasnow-play.com>, <vegasnow-australia.org>, <vegasnow.win>, <vegasnowcasino-au.com>, <casino-vegasnow.net>, and <vegasnow-casino-au.com> domain names are registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp, URL Solutions, Inc., Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com, Gransy, s.r.o., Dynadot Inc and Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Internet Domain Service BS Corp, URL Solutions, Inc., Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com, Gransy, s.r.o., Dynadot Inc and Tucows Domains Inc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp, URL Solutions, Inc., Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com, Gransy, s.r.o., Dynadot Inc and Tucows Domains Inc. registration agreements and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@vegasnow-online.net, postmaster@vegas-now-casino.net, postmaster@vegasnow-pokies.com, postmaster@vegasnow-casino.co, postmaster@vegasnow-online.com, postmaster@casino-vegasnow.org, postmaster@vegasnow-casino.org, postmaster@vegasnowcasinoo.com, postmaster@vegasaunow.com, postmaster@vegasnow-play.com, postmaster@vegasnow-australia.org, postmaster@vegasnow.win, postmaster@vegasnowcasino-au.com, postmaster@casino-vegasnow.net, and postmaster@vegasnow-casino-au.com. Also on February 2, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that, despite the listing of different Registrants in the respective WHOIS records, the disputed domain names at issue are effectively owned or controlled by the same domain name holder which is operating under different aliases. It then requests that these domain names be consolidated into the present proceeding. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." Despite being presented with WHOIS records that name different Registrants, prior Panels have held that consolidation of a case against multiple domain names is appropriate where there are other similarities that indicate a likelihood of common ownership. See, e.g., American Airlines, Inc. v. Ramadhir Singh, WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Reema Gupta, Ballu Balwant, Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Lucy Lionel, Lucy99, Red Keep, D2021-0294 (WIPO Mar. 11, 2021) (consolidation upheld based on "the similar content and layout of the websites that were linked to the disputed domain names; the fact that all the disputed domain names target a specific sector and the same trademark within this sector; the similar patterns in the disputed domain names; and the identical reaction of the Respondents to the Complaint, not replying to the Complainant's contentions."); Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Shuai Li / Nan Zhang, FA 1932371 (Forum Mar. 18, 2021) (similar website content, use of same registrars and privacy services). Complainant contends that, despite their respective WHOIS records listing different Registrant names and addresses, the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity because 1) each domain name uses a naming pattern involving the Complainant's mark; 2) most resolve to a website that displays identical content including links that redirect users to third-party online gaming websites; 3) all are associated with the same hosting provider; and 4) although the domains were registered over some months, many were registered in clusters within a short time of each other. It is also noted that two of the named domain Registrants were involved in a prior UDRP complaint brought by Complainant against similar domain names and in which the Panel found that "each of the disputed domain names are registered by or are in the control of the same person or entity…" Razor Trade Corporation v. Eugene Gonzales / Sacha Kappeler / Oleksii Orlov / Olivier Fournier, FA 2186820 (Forum Dec, 9, 2025). In light of the above similarities and intersections, and in the absence of participation in these proceedings by any party claiming to be a Registrant of these domain names, the Panel determines it is more likely than not that the disputed domain names are under common control by the same domain name holder. As such, there is no inequity in consolidating these domain names into the present case, which will proceed against all of them, and their holder will be referred to in the singular as "Respondent". PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Starting in October of 2024, Complainant has operated its website at <vegasnow.com> providing players with a wide diversity of online entertainment experiences, including numerous slot games from world top providers and live casino games. The Vegas Now casino offers attractive welcome bonuses, organizes tournaments and conducts marketing campaigns. Complainant is the owner of EUIPO Trademark Reg. No. 019090406 which was applied for on October 11, 2024 and registered on January 28, 2025 claiming the figurative mark THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW. It also owns common law rights to the mark dating back to 2024. Almost immediately after gaining public attention in the industry, at the peak of popularity, starting from around October 2024, Complainant observed a great number of third-party websites infringing its rights, exploiting the trust and goodwill built up with players and partners. Each of the disputed domain names, registered in clusters between January 8, 2025 and September 8, 2025, is confusingly similar to Complainant's THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark as the dominant part of the domain names is the phrase "Vegas Now", with or without an added hyphen, adding only a generic word such as "casino", "play", "now", "pokies", and/or a geographic term, and a TLD. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names where it is not commonly known by any of them and it hosts impersonation websites that forward users to third-party online gaming sites that compete with Complainant. The disputed domain names were registered and are used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's mark and based on the above-mentioned redirection to competing sites for commercial gain based on confusion with the mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS - Complainant owns trademark rights in THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark and each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to the mark; - Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names where Respondent is commonly known by the domain names and they are used to impersonate Complainant and forward users to competing third-party online gaming sites; and - The disputed domain names were registered and are used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's mark and its resolving websites impersonate Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in its THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark through its registration with the EUIPO. Registration of a mark with the EUIPO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Domain Privacy Services, FA 1786849 (Forum June 15, 2018) (finding Complainant has trademark rights in the BITTREX mark through registration of the mark with the EUIPO and the USPTO). Here, Complainant provides copies of its EUIPO registration certificate showing that the mark was applied for on October 11, 2024 and was registered on January 28, 2025. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant further claims trademark rights, at common law, dating back to the October 2024 release of its online casino platform. It is acceptable for a complainant to demonstrate established common law rights in an asserted trademark in order to satisfy this element of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) ("Complainant does not claim to own a trademark registered with a governmental authority. However, Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require such registration if a complainant can demonstrate having common law rights.") To establish common law rights in a name, a complainant generally must show extensive and continuous use in commerce such that the mark has developed a secondary meaning with respect to the complainant and its business. See Iacocca v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 1088017 (Forum Nov. 29, 2007) ("In order to garner the benefit of common law trademark rights, Complainant must lay out, not only evidence of extensive and continuous use of the mark in commerce, but also evince some strong probability that as a result of such exposure, that consumers have come to associate the mark with Complainant, as to the source of the goods.") Here, Complainant claims to have continuously and exclusively used its THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark since October of 2024 and, in support, it provides screenshots of the following: a page from <askgamblers.com> referencing the establishment of the "Vegas Now Casino" in 2024; its <vegasnow.com> website promoting Complainant's online gambling services; a TrustPilot page showing a ranking of 4.3 stars after 1,107 reviews dating back to September 19, 2024; and a Google Trends report showing activity for the search term "VegasNow Casino" beginning in late October of 2024. While more robust evidence likely could have been provided, the Panel finds that Complainant's submissions provide at least the minimum to show that it possessed common law rights to THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW trademark as of late 2024. Next, Complainant argues that each of Respondent's disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to its mark as their second level incorporates the most distinctive portion of the mark adding, variously, a hyphen, a generic or geographic term and a TLD. The mere addition of a hyphen and a TLD is typically not sufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark. See Google LLC v. GAI YA, FA 2192156 (Forum January 19, 2026) ("This is a case of merely adding a hyphen between the two recognizable word elements of Complainant's trademark" and "it is well-established practice that the specific top level of a domain name such as '.pro' does not affect the disputed domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.") Further, adding generic terms, particularly those relating to a complainant's business, also does not avoid confusing similarity. Vance Int'l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that by adding the term "security" to the complainant's VANCE mark, which described the complainant's business, the respondent "very significantly increased" the likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark). As each of the disputed domain names incorporates the distinctive VEGAS NOW portion of THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark and only adds, variously, a hyphen, a generic word related to gambling such as "casino", "play", "now", "pokies", and/or a geographic term, plus a TLD, the Panel finds that each is confusingly similar to Complainants' mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests"). Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names nor has Respondent been given consent to use Complainant's mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS records for the disputed domain names, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identify Respondent by a number of different alias names, none of which bear any resemblance to any of the domain names and Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to claim that it is known otherwise. The fact that Complainant's mark appears on Respondent's websites does not, itself, indicate that Respondent is commonly known thereby where such use appears intended to create consumer confusion. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.") Furthermore, the Complaint specifically states that "Respondent's use of the Trademark suggests to consumers that Respondent is an authorized licensee or otherwise somehow affiliated with Complainant, which is false" and Respondent has not made any claim to the contrary. Therefore, the Panel finds no ground upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, addressing Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), the Complaint asserts that Respondent does not use its domain names in the bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the services offered on its website are directly competitive to those provided by Complainant. Rather, it claims that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to divert and deceive customers. Passing oneself off as a complainant and diverting users to a respondent's webpage, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).") Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the websites that resolve from the disputed domain names. The headers and marquis images display Complainant's "VN" logo and "THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW" mark and logo in the identical colors and graphic forms used by Complainant. Below these appear the text "Up To $8,000 + 500 Free Spins" and links titled "Log In" and "Welcome Offer, Join Now". Some of the sites also contain a block to text that begins with "Welcome to Vegas Now Casino – your go-to destination for thrilling casino action and top-notch entertainment" and also includes "Join us today and discover why Vegas Now Casino is quickly becoming a favourite…" When a user clicks on one of the above-mentioned links, they are brought to third-party online gaming sites that are not affiliated with Complainant. From this evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent is seeking to pass itself off as and impersonate Complainant and is thus not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and that it is also not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). As noted above, this shifts the burden of proof to Respondent but it has not participated in these proceedings and so has not rebutted Complainant's case. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge and constructive notice of Complainant's rights in THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark based on Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to host websites that impersonate Complainant. Actual knowledge of a complainant's trademark rights may form a solid foundation upon which to establish bad faith and may be inferred when a respondent uses an identical disputed domain name to pass itself off as a complainant. See Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) ("[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.") In support, it submits screenshots of Respondent's websites showing that they feature Complainant's graphic logos as well as text that falsely identifies Complainant as the source of the sites' content. In light of the submitted evidence and arguments, the Panel finds that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain names and is seeking to impersonate Complainant in bad faith. Next, the Complaint asserts that Respondent is impersonating Complainant and is seeking commercial gain based on confusion with THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark while providing links to third party services in competition with Complainant. This sets out claims for bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Zapier, Inc. v. Manohar Chapalamadugu / Agile CRM Inc., FA 2049262 (Forum July 23, 2023) (where the disputed "domain name resolves to a website that purports to do exactly what Complainant does", the Panel found that Respondent is "using the disputed domain name to offer competing services under the same mark, and thus, attracting unsuspecting Zapier customers to its infringing website, and disrupting and damaging Zapier's business.") Here, Complainant states that Respondent is seeking to "mimic the original [<vegasnow.com>] website" and "is using the Domain names in such manner to intentionally attract players and users to the infringing websites by exploiting the reputation of the Trademark and then redirecting to another website for commercial gain." Based on the screenshots submitted into evidence, the Panel agrees that Respondent uses THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark to impersonate Complainant and to offer links to third party gaming and gambling services that compete with Complainant's own online gaming services under the mark. Thus, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Panel finds that the domain names were registered and are used in bad faith to target, compete with, and disrupt Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <vegasnow-online.net>, <vegas-now-casino.net>, <vegasnow-pokies.com>, <vegasnow-casino.co>, <vegasnow-online.com>, <casino-vegasnow.org>, <vegasnow-casino.org>, <vegasnowcasinoo.com>, <vegasaunow.com>, <vegasnow-play.com>, <vegasnow-australia.org>, <vegasnow.win>, <vegasnowcasino-au.com>, <casino-vegasnow.net>, and <vegasnow-casino-au.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. __________________________________________________________________ Steven M. Levy, Panelist Dated: February 26, 2026 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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