Station Casinos, Inc. v. Teri Vernieri
Claim Number: FA0911001294118
Complainant is Station
Casinos, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Erin E. Lewis, of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <stationcasino.net>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 9, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <stationcasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATION CASINOS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <stationcasino.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <stationcasino.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Station Casinos, Inc.,
holds several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the STATION CASINOS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,864,405 issued
Respondent registered the <stationcasino.net>
domain name on
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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the
Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical
Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb.
Forum
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.
Complainant’s registration of the STATION CASINOS mark with
the USPTO is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in the marks pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs.,
FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The <stationcasino.net>
domain name incorporates the dominant
features of the STATION CASINOS mark by including both words of the mark,
omitting the space between the words and “s” after “casino.” Previous Panels have found that these changes
are insignificant. See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first establish a prima
facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <stationcasino.net>
domain name. If the Panel finds that Complainant’s
allegations establish such a prima facie case, the burden shifts to
Respondent to show that it does indeed have rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name pursuant to the guidelines in Policy ¶ 4(c). The Panel finds that Complainant’s
allegations are sufficient to establish a prima
facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Since no response was submitted
in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <stationcasino.net> domain name.
However, the Panel will still examine the record in consideration of the
factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c). See
Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault.,
FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a
complainant has made out a prima facie case
in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it
does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the
Policy.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA
118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission
constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively
shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has
not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate
interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent to use its STATION CASINOS mark, and the WHOIS information identifies the registrant as “Teri Vernieri.” The Panel finds no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <stationcasino.net> domain name and has therefore not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).
Respondent is using the <stationcasino.net>
domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATION CASINOS
mark, to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s services to
third-party websites. Some of these
websites are in competition with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds this use is not a use in
connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or
a noncommercial or legitimate fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM
Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on
The website that resolves from the <stationcasino.net>
domain name displays links to websites related to and in direct competition
with Complainant’s business. The Panel
infers that Respondent received either pay-per-click fees or advertising fees
for these advertisements. Since the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, Internet
users are likely to become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation or
sponsorship of the disputed domain name and resolving website. Respondent was seeking to profit from this
confusion by hosting advertisements on the resolving website. The Panel finds that this use is evidence of
bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(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 <stationcasino.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: December 17, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum