DECISION

 

PULSUP LTD v. Eugene Gonzales

Claim Number: FA2508002169606

 

PARTIES

Complainant is PULSUP LTD ("Complainant"), represented by Valentina Avgousti of PULSUP LTD, Cyprus. Respondent is Eugene Gonzales ("Respondent"), Spain.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <rocketplaycasinos.com>, registered with URL Solutions, Inc.

 

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.

 

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 5, 2025; Forum received payment on August 5, 2025.

 

On August 5, 2025, URL Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <rocketplaycasinos.com> domain name is registered with URL Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. URL Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the URL Solutions, Inc. 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 August 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 28, 2025 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@rocketplaycasinos.com. Also on August 8, 2025, 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 August 29, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 made the following contentions.

1.       The Complainant is a Cypriot company engaged in the provision of gambling services by means of an online platform and has been so engaged since at least 2020.

2.       The Complainant provides its goods and services under its common law trademark for ROCKETPLAY and subsequently under its registered trademark rights for ROCKET PLAY.

3.       The Complainant acquired its aforesaid common law trademark rights by virtue of its extensive and continuous use of that mark for its goods and services since at least 2020 and therefore prior to the registration of the disputed domain name on March 6, 2023 and acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of its registration of the ROCKET PLAY trademark with IP Australia, registration number 2,499,913, registered on November 18, 2024, registration number 2,499,915, registered on November 18, 2024 and registered number 2,499,916, registered on November 18, 2024 (collectively "the ROCKETPLAY trademark").

4.       The ROCKETPLAY trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services.

5.       As well as its aforesaid trademarks, the Complainant registered the <rocketplay.com> domain name on May 26, 2012 which it has continually used since then in its business and in particular to promote its goods and services.

6.       The Respondent registered the <rocketplaycasinos.com> disputed domain name on March 6, 2023 ("the disputed domain name"), after the Complainant had established its aforesaid common law trademark rights from at least 2020.

7.       The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the ROCKETPLAY trademark, with the addition of the generic word "casinos" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com".

8.       The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ROCKETPLAY trademark.

9.       The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:

(a)       the Complainant began using its common law ROCKETPLAY trademark in its business at least as early as 2020, but the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name until 3 years later on March 6, 2023;

(b)       the Respondent has caused the dispute domain name to resolve to a website that imitates, is a clone of, and copies the Complainant's own legitimate website at www.rocketplay.com;      

(c)       the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its trademark in a domain name or in any other way and the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant;

(d)       the aforesaid use of the domain name by the Respondent is not a bona fide offer of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and the Respondent has not used the domain name for any such bona fide purpose;

(e)       the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);

(f)       the aforesaid use of the disputed domain name is not a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), and the Respondent has not used the domain name for any such legitimate, noncommercial or fair use;

(g)        the Complainant has and at all material times has had trademark rights in the ROCKETPLAY trademark and the Respondent does not have and never has had any trademark or other rights in that trademark; and

(h)       there is no other basis on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.

10.       The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because:

(a)                      the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 6, 2023, well after the Complainant had established its common law trademark rights in the ROCKETPLAY trademark from at least 2020;

(b)                      the Respondent's website is a clone and unauthorized duplication of the Complainant's official website, replicates the ROCKETPLAY trademark and imitates its interface design, button styles, promotional banners, fonts, layout and structural arrangement of the site;

(c)                      the Respondent has caused the domain name to redirect users to third-party gambling platforms;

(d)                      the Respondent's intention was at all times to misappropriate the Complainant's identity, mislead users and monetize the resulting traffic;

(e)                      the Respondent's conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to generate confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent and their respective websites within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and for profit;

(f)                      the Respondent at all material times had actual notice of the Complainant and its trademarks, brand and business; and

(g)                      all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately have registered and used the disputed domain name.

The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has been able to make out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief that it seeks.

B. Respondent

    Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.       The Complainant is a Cypriot company engaged in the provision of gambling services by means of an online platform and has been so engaged since at least 2020.

2.       The Complainant provides its goods and services under the common law trademark for ROCKETPLAY subsequently confirmed by its acquisition of registered trademark rights for ROCKET PLAY.

3.       The Complainant acquired its aforesaid common law trademark rights by virtue of its extensive and continuous use of that mark as the source of its goods and services since at least 2020 and its registered trademark rights by virtue of its registration of the ROCKET PLAY trademarks with IP Australia, registration number 2,499,913, registered on November 18, 2024, registered number 2,499,915, and registered number 2,499,916, registered on November 18, 2024 (collectively "the ROCKETPLAY trademark").

4.       The Respondent registered the <rocketplaycasinos.com> domain name on March 6, 2023 ("the disputed domain name") well after the Complainant had established its aforesaid common law trademark rights from at least 2020.

5.       The Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to it's website, targeted the Complainant, its potential customers and internet users in general, infringed and tarnished the Complainant's ROCKET PLAY trademark, passed itself off as the Complainant and actively sought to mislead and confuse internet users to believe that the services offered on the Respondent's website were genuine and official services of the Complainant, which they were not.

6.       By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ohm trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

7.       Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the 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

The first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. The evidence has shown that the Complainant acquired common law trademark rights in the ROCKET PLAY trademark and that it acquired those rights in 2020 and hence well before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 6, 2023.

It should first be said that it is well-established that common law trademark rights are sufficient for establishing a trademark within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Secondly, the burden is on the Complainant to show by evidence that it has established those rights.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has clearly discharged that burden by the evidence it has adduced. The evidence is that the Complainant started its online gambling business in the year 2020. To that end, it registered the domain name <rocketplay.com> on May 26, 2012 which its used to promote its gambling services under the name "Rocket Play". Thus, an early screenshot from the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org on September 12, 2012 shows that on and from that date its was promoting those services under that name.¹ Without reciting numerous such screenshots, it is convenient to note that in the intervening years it continued to do so and was doing so when the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on March 6, 2023; thus, on February 19, 2023 it was promoting its services under the caption "RocketPlay Casino-The Best Casino in Canada 2023"². It is clear therefore that from 2012 and when the Respondent registered the domain name, the Complainant was using the name Rocket Play as the source of its gambling services and that it was using Rocket Play as the means by which gambling aficionados could and did identify that expression as the mark of the Complainant's business.

Moreover, the evidence is that the Complainant received several awards for its activities in the gambling industry under the name Rocket Play. Thus, the evidence is that:

(a)                      in 2023 the Complainant received from Casino Guru "The Voice of the People Award" for its offerings under Rocket Play. The evidence is also that in 2022 it received the Members' Choice Award as part of the LCB Awards, LCB being "an independent directory and reviewer of online casinos, a casino forum, and guide to casino bonuses"³;

(b)                      in 2021 it received a "Rising Star in Casino" nomination as part of the SBC (Sports Betting Community),⁴ Awards for 2021;

(c)                      it received numerous other awards, evidence of which the Panel has examined.

Also, the United States copyright registration to the Complainant, as "Pulsup Ltd", for its RocketPlay brand, according to the evidence, was for the logo, color palette, typography, banners, and interface layout used since the year 2020.

The evidence is also that since its launch in 2020, "ROCKETPLAY has gained substantial attention in the iGaming industry and among players", has received numerous awards and recommendations from within the industry and has "a strong reputation among consumers, with users accessing the Complainant's platform via rocketplay.com and affiliated networks."

It is clear from the evidence which the Panel has examined that the ROCKETPLAY mark has acquired distinctiveness and is recognized by the relevant public as a source identifier for the Complainant's services, that such recognition has continued from 2020, was current in 2023 when the disputed domain name was registered and that it is current today. This has been demonstrated by the Complainant's direct evidence and such sources as the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org.

It should also be noted that the Complainant's common law trademark for ROCKETPLAY, current since 2020 has since been confirmed and recognized by the aforesaid registered Australian trademarks.

All of the aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order.

The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ROCKETPLAY trademark. The Panel finds that the <rocketplaycasinos.com> disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ROCKETPLAY trademark. That is so because it consists solely of the wording of the trademark itself, the generic word "casinos" and the ".com" Top Level Domain.

When a domain name includes a trademark, it is more likely than not that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark, as the domain name will usually be dominated by the trademark as it will be the most significant portion of the domain name. In the present case that is clearly so. The domain name in the present case also includes the generic word "casinos" which will not negate that conclusion because internet users would see the domain name as invoking the trademark and the goods and services offered under it that are characterized by the additional word, meaning in the present case that it invokes the goods and services covered by the word "casinos", namely gambling services conducted under the trademark. 

It is also the established practice in this field that extensions such as ".com" are disregarded for the purposes of the comparison between a trademark and a domain name, as all domain names require such an extension and its presence does not inform internet users one way or the other whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. There are many prior UDRP decisions to that effect.

These considerations make the domain name confusingly similar to the ROCKETPLAY trademark.

Applying these well-accepted principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ROCKETPLAY trademark.

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such 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)).

 

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:

(a)       the Complainant began using the ROCKETPLAY trademark at least as early as 2020, but the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name until 3 years later on March 6, 2023; thus, the Respondent has been engaged in cheating on the Complainant and copying its creative work which existed for many years before the Respondent registered its domain name;

(b)        the evidence is that the Respondent has caused the dispute domain name to resolve to a website that imitates, is a clone of, and copies the Complainant's own legitimate website at www.rocketplay.com; this is seen by the fact that the domain name resolves to a website that not only promotes gambling services but does so by blatant copying of the Complainant's own official and genuine website; the Respondent's website is shown by Annex F which provides a useful comparison of the two websites; from that comparison it can be seen that the Color Palette is shown in identical colors on both websites, the printing is clearly copied, with similar button shape, the Homepage Banner has been copied, the text of a bonus offer is virtually an exact copy, the support offered to users has been copied and there is an overall sameness about the ambiance, general layout and style of the two websites;

(c)       the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its trademark in a domain name or in any other way and the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant; this has been established by the evidence and shows that it could not be argued that the domain name was registered or used with anything like the consent of the Complainant;

(d)       the aforesaid use of the domain name is not a bona fide offer of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and the Respondent has not used the domain name for any such bona fide purpose; there is nothing bona fide in taking another party's trademark without consent and using it to resolve to a bogus rival website that offers the same services as the trademark owner and does so by the blatant coping of the trademark owner's website, which is exactly what has been done; moreover, the mechanics of the operations are geared to attract Australian users who are then diverted to other third party gambling platforms, showing that the intention of the Respondent is to monetize the internet traffic, the Complainant's logo is copied, there is no independent branding or disclaimer of an association with the Complainant and the whole structure is based on an intention to confuse internet users into believing that it is based on the Complainant's brand and service, which it is not, showing that there is no bona fide element in the Respondent's conduct at all; not surprisingly, other UDRP panels have held in such decisions as Dinotech Limited v. Viktor Meshko, WIPO Case No. D2024-489 and Ninja Global Ltd. v. Ivan Kozarov, Affiliate EOOD, WIPO Case No. D2024-340, and TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Forum Dec. 31, 2002), that copycat gambling sites do not constitute a bona fide  offering of goods and services;

(e)       the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain name, either commonly or otherwise, and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own, which is Eugene Gonzales;

(f)       the aforesaid use of the domain name is not legitimate, noncommercial or fair within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); it is not legitimate as it is entirely illegitimate, based as it is on plagiarism; it is not noncommercial as it is purely commercial, being intended to make money; and it is not fair, either to the Complainant or to internet users in general because they are being duped;

(g)       the Complainant has and at all material times has had trademark rights in the ROCKET PLAY trademark and the Respondent does not have and has never had any trademark or other rights in that trademark despite trading on it; this goes without saying and has been established by the evidence; and

(h)       there is no other basis on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.

The Complainant has thus made out a persuasive and detailed case on the evidence for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent is in default and has not advanced any evidence or submissions to show that it could rebut the Complainant's contentions.

 

The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

In view of the evidence discussed above, particularly Annex F, which is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat here, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain name and has continued in that conduct after its registration, showing bad faith use; the registration was, as was its use, clearly an attempt by the Respondent to use its domain name, incorporating as it does the Complainant's trademark, for a dishonest and financial objective, as it resolves to a website that copies the Complainant's legitimate website. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

(a)                      the evidence shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 6, 2023 well after the Complainant had established its common law trademark rights in the ROCKETPLAY trademark;

(b)                      the evidence shows that the Respondent's website is a clone and an unauthorized duplication of the Complainant's official website, it replicates the ROCKETPLAY trademark and copies the design, button styles, promotional banners, fonts, layout and structural arrangement of the website showing a deceitful intent;

(c)                      the Respondent has caused the domain name to redirect users to third-party gambling platforms; this has been shown by the evidence referred to above;

(d)                      the only conclusion that can be reached on the evidence is that the Respondent's intention was at all times to misappropriate the Complainant's identity, mislead users and monetize the resulting internet traffic;

(e)                      the evidence shows that the Respondent's conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to generate confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent and their respective websites within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and for profit;

(f)                      the evidence shows that the Respondent at all material times had actual notice of the Complainant and its trademarks, brand and business; the Respondent must have had actual notice in view of its detailed copying of the Complainant's website and it could not have carried out its subterfuge without that actual knowledge; and

(g)                      all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have shown that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could have legitimately registered and used the disputed domain name.

Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name using the ROCKETPLAY trademark and in view of the conduct of the Respondent, as shown by all of the available evidence, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. It is clear that, from the beginning, the Respondent set about targeting the Complainant, its potential customers and internet users in general, infringed and tarnished the Complainant's trademark, copied the Complainant and its website and actively sought to mislead and confuse internet users to believe that the services offered on the Respondent's website were genuine and official services of the Complainant, which they were not.

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The Complainant has presented a detailed and persuasive case consisting of evidence that has established all of the constituent elements that must be proved under the Policy.

The Complainant has also cited numerous prior UDRP decisions which support all of its contentions.

The Complainant has therefore established all the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of the disputed domain name.

 

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 <rocketplaycasinos.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from the Respondent to the Complainant.

 

 

 

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC

Panelist

Dated: September 2, 2025