DECISION

 

Razor Trade Corporation v. Andrii Tereshchenko / Private person / Michele Grigolo

Claim Number: FA2606002228362

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Razor Trade Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Kamal Tserakhau of REVERA Polska sp. z o.o., Poland. Respondent is Andrii Tereshchenko / Private person / Michele Grigolo ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <vegasnowaustralia.org>, <vegasnowcasino.ltd>, and <vegasnowcasino.app> (the "disputed domain names"), registered with Dynadot 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.

 

Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 22, 2026; Forum received payment on June 22, 2026.

 

On June 23, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <vegasnowaustralia.org>, <vegasnowcasino.ltd>, and <vegasnowcasino.app> disputed domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 June 29, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 20, 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@vegasnowaustralia.org, postmaster@vegasnowcasino.ltd, and postmaster@vegasnowcasino.app. Also on June 29, 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 July 21, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 disputed domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the named Respondents for the disputed domain names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP 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."

 

The Panel considers it likely, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondents of the disputed domain names are related because: 1) they each wholly incorporate the same portion of Complainant's THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark, followed by the term "australia" in one domain name and "casino" in two other domain names; 2) Each of the disputed domain names resolve to similar websites, offering competing online casino services;  (3) Each of the resolving websites features identical design elements, including Complainant's original creative images, logo implementations, and color palette, and operate through an identical redirect mechanism; (4) Each of the disputed domain names are registered with the same registrar; (5) Each of the disputed domain names use contact information that is false; and (6) Both Respondents have appeared together as respondents in prior Forum proceedings brought by this same Complainant, having registered domain names incorporating THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark.

 

The fact that the same individuals are respondents across multiple Forum proceedings brought by the same Complainant, each time with different registered domain names incorporating the same THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark, confirms that these respondents are not independent registrants but participants in a coordinated network of cybersquatters operating under aliases.

Based on the above, the Panel concludes that the named Respondents are one and the same Respondent in this case, and accordingly, they should be treated as such. Hereafter, the single Respondent will be referred to as "Respondent" for this Decision.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a company incorporated under the laws of Seychelles and having its registered office in the Seychelles. In October 2024, Complainant, together with its partner Just Entertainment B.V. (a company incorporated under the laws of Curaçao), launched THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW online casino platform operating at the website "www.vegasnow.com". The website provides players with online entertainment services, including numerous slot games from leading providers and live casino games, under the VEGAS NOW brand.

 

Complainant has rights in the figurative THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW trademark through its registration of the mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office ("EUIPO") (e.g., Registration No. 019090406, registered on January 28, 2025, in International Classes 9, 28, 41 and 42) (hereinafter referred to as "THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark").

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

Starting from early 2025, at the peak of the brand's popularity, Respondent registered at least three domain names confusingly similar to the trademark with the purpose of intercepting users searching for the website.  The websites associated with the disputed domain names replicate the design, layout, and branding of the official website to create the false impression that users have reached Complainant's platform. When a user attempts to interact with any such website, they are redirected to competing online casino services.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

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 3.1 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark as set forth below.

 

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 trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1"), section 1.7.

 

Complainant has rights in the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the EUIPO (e.g., Registration No. 019090406, registered on January 28, 2025, in International Classes 9, 28, 41 and 42). Registration of a mark with the EUIPO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).

 

The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark since they incorporate the dominant portion of THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark, removing the term "fabulous", while adding either the term "australia" or "casino" and a generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD").  The registration of a disputed domain name that adds a term to the entirety of a trademark does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where disputed domain names contain a complainant's entire mark and differ only by the addition of a term). Moreover, where the trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the addition of a term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8 ("where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive … or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element").

 

In addition, adding a gTLD, a technical requirement of a domain name, to a complainant's mark, also does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Elenie Reese v. Eddie Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (the mere addition of a generic Top-Level Domain, such as ".com", is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a trademark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which a 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 that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The 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 name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark, Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant, and Complainant does not have any type of business relationship with Respondent.

 

In particular, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent used the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant. The impersonation of a complainant and its website, as here, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has incorporated the trademark in its entirety into disputed domain names that resolve to websites replicating Complainant's website's design, layout, and branding, including visual elements and color palette, creating a false impression of affiliation, sponsorship, or endorsement by the Complainant. The infringing websites redirect users to unregulated and unauthorized online casino services operated by Complainant's direct competitors, plainly aimed at exploiting Complainant's goodwill for commercial gain.  Panels have consistently held that using disputed domain names to impersonate a complainant's website fails to establish a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the second element has been established by Complainant.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as set forth below.

 

First, bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) can be found where, as here, a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to falsely indicate an association with a complainant. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006).

 

Second, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark. Actual knowledge of a complainant's mark prior to registering a disputed domain name is sufficient to establish bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). Moreover, it strains credulity to think that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant's THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark or of Complainant as Respondent registered a disputed domain name that was confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. Prior knowledge of a complainant's trademark and use of disputed domain names that incorporate the trademark is sufficient to find bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (finding actual knowledge due to the domain name chosen and the use made of it); Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware" of the complainant's mark at the time of registration).

 

Third, Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by diverting consumers to Respondent's websites and by passing off its website as Complainant's for commercial gain. Use of disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to a respondent's website which is confusingly similar to a complainant's website, constitutes bad faith disruption of a complainant's business and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain.

 

Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of abusive domain name registration, demonstrating Respondent's bad faith registration and use. In addition to the disputed domain names in this proceeding, the Respondent has registered other domain names that incorporate Complainant's THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark, thereby further demonstrating bad faith. See Abbott Laboratories v. Bilgi Gmus, FA 1813570 (Forum Nov. 21, 2018). Such conduct establishes Respondent's pattern of cybersquatting and demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use. See Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Gioacchino Zerbo, FA 1299744 (Forum Feb. 3, 2010).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third element has been established by Complainant.

 

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 <vegasnowaustralia.org>, <vegasnowcasino.ltd>, and <vegasnowcasino.app> disputed domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Lynda M. Braun, Panelist

Dated: July 28, 2026