Aristogame.com

The timeline behind aristogame.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. pokie pok Claim Number: FA2602002205120 PARTIES Complainant is Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. ("Complainant"), represented by Lian Ernette of Aristocrat Technologies, Inc., Nevada, USA. Respondent is pokie pok ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <aristogame.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 12, 2026; Forum received payment on February 12, 2026. On February 13, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <aristogame.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement 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 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 9, 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@aristogame.com. Also on February 16, 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 March 10, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant asserts trademark rights in ARISTOCRAT GAMING and alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The background facts pertinent to this decision are that: 1. Complainant provides online electronic gaming services by reference to the trademark, ARISTOCRAT GAMING; 2. Complainant is the proprietor of United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 6,472,737, registered August 31, 2021, for the mark ARISTOCRAT GAMING; 3. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 12, 2025, concealing its identity by a privacy service; and 4. the domain name resolves to a website which purports to offer electronic gaming services and carries links to third party gaming sites. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights. Since Complainant provides evidence of its USPTO registration for ARISTOCRAT GAMING, the Panel is satisfied that it has trademark rights (see, for example, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Periasami Malain, FA 705262 (Forum June 19, 2006) ("Complainant's registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the trademark, STATE FARM, establishes its rights in the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i)."). For the purposes of comparison, the non-distinctive gTLD, ".com" can be disregarded (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the addition of the top level of the domain name does not affect the determination of whether the compared terms are identical or confusingly similar). The disputed domain name is then a transparent contraction of the trademark. The Panel finds the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The Panel so finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000). The name of the holder of the disputed domain name, as disclosed by the Registrar in consequence of these proceedings does not suggest that Respondent may be known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has a trademark of its own which might explain creation of the domain name. Complainant states, and the Panel accepts, that no permission has been given to Respondent to use the trademark. Finally, the evidence shows that the domain name resolves to a website which purports to offer Complainant's games but the links to those games in fact divert visitors to sites offering gaming products which compete with Complainant's products. The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case (see, for example, Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) refusing to find rights and legitimate interests where the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant"). The onus shifts to Respondent to establish a legitimate interest in the domain name and, absent a Response, that case is not rebutted, and the Panel finds that Complainant has established the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. The four specified circumstances are: '(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to respondent's 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 respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.' The Panel finds that the circumstances support the application of paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The Panel has already found the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. On the evidence, the trademark is well known. There has been no genuine use of the domain name. There has been no Response. In terms of the Policy, the Panel makes the reasonable inference that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of commercial gain by confusing internet users as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the products and/or services at the resolving location. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy. 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 <aristogame.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist Dated: March 10, 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.