Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC v. Hoang Mai Phan
Claim Number: FA2205001998213
Complainant is Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Peter H. Ajemian of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Nevada, USA. Respondent is Hoang Mai Phan (“Respondent”), Viet Nam.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <wynncasino.pro> and <wynn08.pro>, (‘the Domain Names’) registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 26, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 26, 2022.
On May 27, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <wynncasino.pro> and <wynn08.pro> Domain Names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 May 31, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 21, 2022 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@wynncasino.pro, postmaster@wynn08.pro. Also on May 31, 2022, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 29, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant owns the trade mark WYNN registered, inter alia, in the USA for casino services with first use in commerce recorded as 2005.
The Domain Names registered in 2022 are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark adding only the generic term ‘casino’ or the generic numbers ‘08’, and the gTLD “.pro” none of which are sufficient to prevent said confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, is not commonly known by the Domain Names and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Names have been pointed to sites offering competing gaming services using the Complainant’s mark and logo for a masthead. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. It is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith causing confusion amongst Internet users and disruption to the Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant owns the trade mark WYNN registered, inter alia, in the USA for casino services with first use in commerce recorded as 2005.
The Domain Names registered in 2022 have been pointed to sites using the Complainant’s WYNN mark and logo as a masthead to offer competing gaming services appearing to be official sites of the Complainant.
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.
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”).
The Domain Names consist of the Complainant's WYNN mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for casino services with first use recorded as 2005), the generic term ‘casino’ or the generic numbers ‘08’, and the gTLD “.pro”.
Domain names which incorporate an entire mark are usually considered confusingly similar, while adding generic terms or numbers generally creates no distinction between a complainant’s mark and a disputed domain name under Policy 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. garybush co uk, FA 360612 (Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the mark with the mere addition of the nondistinctive number ‘0.’ The addition of the number ‘0’ is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark.”).
A gTLD does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc v. Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant and does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Names. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The web sites attached to the Domain Names used the Complainant’s mark and logo as a masthead to offer competing services. The Panel finds this use is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc. v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.) See Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for 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).”). The use of these domain names is commercial so cannot be legitimate non commercial fair use.
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or offered any explanation.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Names in relation to the Respondent’s sites is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the sites might reasonably believe they are connected to or approved by the Complainant as they offer competing services under the Complainant’s mark and logo as a masthead. The use of the Complainant’s logo shows that the Respondent is well aware of the Complainant’s rights and business.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web sites and services offered on them likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v. Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). See Allianz of AM. Corp v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iv) and 4 (b)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wynncasino.pro> and <wynn08.pro> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: June 29, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page