DECISION

 

Razor Trade Corporation v. Christian Amato / Mostovyi Maksym / Abel Casado / Andrei Ionescu

Claim Number: FA2608002238197

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Razor Trade Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Kamal Tserakhau of REVERA Polska sp. z o.o., Poland. Respondent is Christian Amato / Mostovyi Maksym / Abel Casado / Andrei Ionescu ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <auvegasnow.com>, <vegasnow-casino.net>, <vegasnow-ch.net>, <casinovegasnowca.com>, and <casinovegasnownz.com> ("Domain Names"), registered with Spaceship, Inc.; NameSilo, LLC; URL Solutions, Inc.; and NameCheap, 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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 7, 2026; Forum received payment on August 7, 2026.

 

On August 10 or 11, 2026 each of the Registrars confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <auvegasnow.com>, <vegasnow-casino.net>, <vegasnow-ch.net>, <casinovegasnowca.com>, and <casinovegasnownz.com> domain names are registered with them and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Each of the Registrars has verified that Respondent is bound by their 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 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@auvegasnow.com, postmaster@vegasnow-casino.net, postmaster@vegasnow-ch.net, postmaster@casinovegasnowca.com, and postmaster@casinovegasnownz.com. Also on August 17, 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 September 9, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 implicitly alleged that the named entities which control the Domain Names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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."  

 

The Panel considers it likely, on the balance of probabilities, that all of the registrants for the Domain Names are related because: 1) the Domain Names each wholly incorporate the same portion of Complainant's THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark (the VEGAS NOW portion), some with additional geographic or generic terms or abbreviations 2) All of the Domain Names resolve or have resolved to strikingly similar websites ("Respondent's Websites"). The Respondent's Websites all offer completing online casino services. All the Respondent's Websites feature similar design elements including Complainant's original creative images, logo implementations, and colour palette. 3) A number of the named registrants provide contact details that are obviously false, such as phone numbers that have no obvious connection to the stated country of location.  

 

This evidence, in the Panel's opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that 4 unconnected entities (some using obviously false contact details) would register 5 similar domain names and resolve them to very similar websites operating on the same business model. In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as "Respondent" for this Decision.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Since 2024 Complainant has operated an online casino from its website at www.vegasnow.com ("Complainant's Website") and under a composite mark containing the stylized words THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW along with minor additional devices ("THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark"). Complainant has rights in the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark through its registration of the mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office ("EUIPO") (e.g. Reg. No. 019,090,406, registered January 28, 2025).  Respondent's Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark because each domain name wholly incorporates the VEGAS NOW portion of the mark and adds a generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Some of the Domain Names also add generic or geographic terms or abbreviations.

 

Respondent has no legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the Domain Names resolve to the Respondent's Websites that reproduce either the VEGAS NOW portion of Complainant's mark or the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark in its entirety and other aspects of the Complainant's intellectual property while offering competing gaming services.

 

Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent registered the Domain Names in order to disrupt Complainant's business and divert customers for commercial gain. Respondent registered the Domain Names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark given the content of the Respondent's Websites, which copy material from Complainant's Website, in some cases reproduce the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark and offer competing services.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark.  Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant's THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the 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

Complainant has rights in the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the EUIPO (e.g. Reg. No. 019,090,406, registered January 28, 2025). 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 the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).

 

The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark as they each incorporate the dominant portion of the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark, merely removing the stylization and device elements (that are not reproducible in a domain name) and the descriptive words "the fabulous", while adding a gTLD and a combination of descriptive terms, such as "casino" and geographic terms and abbreviations such as "ca" and "-ch" (commonly used abbreviations for Canada and Switzerland respectively).  Such changes are insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Franklin Covey Co. v. franklincoveykorea, FA 1774660 (Forum Apr. 11, 2018) (finding that the <franklincoveykorea.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the FRANKLIN COVEY mark, as "[t]he addition of a geographic term and a gTLD do not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD ".com." These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.").

 

In support of the above conclusion the Panel notes that section 1.15 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition states that "In some instances, panels have however taken note of the content of the website associated with a domain name to confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name."  In the present case, by reason of the facts outlined under the elements below, it is clear that Respondent has sought to target and indeed pass itself off as Complainant through the use of the Domain Names.  The Panel finds that the intention of Respondent to mislead Internet users into thinking it is Complainant or connected with Complainant confirms the confusingly similar nature of the Domain Names.

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS information of record lists "Christian Amato / Mostovyi Maksym / Abel Casado / Andrei Ionescu" as the registrants of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Each of the Domain Names resolves or has resolved to the Respondent's Websites. Each of the Respondent's Websites, through the reproduction of the VEGAS NOW portion of the Complainant's mark, the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark in its entirety, other references to the Complainant and/or various device elements copied from the Complainant's Website, passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant for the purpose of offering competing gambling services (or redirecting visitors to third party websites offering gambling services). The use of a confusingly similar domain name to divert internet users to a website offering services in competition with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). See also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names (between December 2025 and June 2026), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark since the Complainant has been using this mark since 2024 for online gaming services and the Respondent's Websites pass themselves off as official websites of the Complainant for the purpose of offering competing services (indeed certain of the Respondent's Websites reproduce the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark in its entirety. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register 5 domain names that contain the VEGAS NOW element of the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark and use each of them for websites offering competing services under the VEGAS NOW element other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's THE FABULOUS VEGAS NOW Mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites offering competing services under a similar mark or marks.  Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). See also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <auvegasnow.com>, <vegasnow-casino.net>, <vegasnow-ch.net>, <casinovegasnowca.com>, and <casinovegasnownz.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: September 10, 2026