Station Casinos LLC, NP IP Holdings LLC, and Station GVR Acquisition, LLC v. Rammell Lewis / Victor & Mum
Claim Number: FA2209002013715
Complainant is Station Casinos LLC, NP IP Holdings LLC, and Station GVR Acquisition, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Lindsey A. Williams of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Nevada. Respondent is Rammell Lewis / Victor & Mum (“Respondent”), US.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <palacestationhotellasvegas.com>, <greenvalleyranchresortcasino.com>,
<santafestationhotellasvegas.com> , <boulderstationcasinolasvegas.com>, <redrockcasinoresortvegas.com> and <sunsetstationhotelcasino.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
There are three Complainants in this matter: Station Casinos LLC, NP IP Holdings LLC, and Station GVR Acquisition, LLC. All three are Nevada limited liability companies with their principal places of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. See Compl. Annex 2. NP IP Holdings LLC and Station GVR Acquisition, LLC are both wholly-owned subsidiaries and intellectual property holding companies of Station Casinos LLC, owner and operator of numerous luxury resort hotel and casino properties located in Las Vegas, Nevada, including the world-renowned Red Rock Casino Resort and Spa and Green Valley
Ranch Resort and Spa. Id.
Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Forum Nov. 5, 2001) (“This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.”).
As the Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, it will treat them all as a single entity in this proceeding which may therefore go forward on that basis.
Moreover, in the decision, the Complainants will be collectively referred to as “Complainant.”
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 27, 2022; Forum received payment on September 27, 2022.
On September 29, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <palacestationhotellasvegas.com>, <greenvalleyranchresortcasino.com>,
<santafestationhotellasvegas.com>, <boulderstationcasinolasvegas.com>, <redrockcasinoresortvegas.com> and <sunsetstationhotelcasino.com>, domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 September 30, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 20, 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@redrockcasinoresortvegas.com, postmaster@greenvalleyranchresortcasino.com, postmaster@sunsetstationhotelcasino.com, postmaster@boulderstationcasinolasvegas.com, postmaster@palacestationhotellasvegas.com, postmaster@santafestationhotellasvegas.com. Also on September 30, 2022, the Written Notices of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, were 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 October 31, 2022, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions.
Complainant, Station Casinos LLC, NP IP Holdings LLC, and Station GVR Acquisition, LLC, own and operate numerous luxury resort hotel and casino properties located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Complainant claims rights in the following trademarks, henceforth referred to as the “STATION marks”, through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
RED ROCK (e.g., Reg. No.3,424,069 registered May 6, 2008),
GREEN VALLEY RANCH (e.g., Reg. No. 2,672,955 registered January 7, 2007),
SUNSET STATION (e.g., Reg. No. 2,793,353 registered December 16, 2003),
BOULDER STATION (e.g., Reg. No. 4,045,416 registered October 25, 2011),
PALACE STATION (e.g., Reg. No. 1,480,097 registered March 8, 1988) and
SANTA FE STATION (e.g., Reg. No. 2,592,683 registered on July 9, 2002). See Compl. Annex 1.
Respondent’s <palacestationhotellasvegas.com>, <greenvalleyranchresortcasino.com>,
<santafestationhotellasvegas.com> , <boulderstationcasinolasvegas.com>, <redrockcasinoresortvegas.com> and <sunsetstationhotelcasino.com> domain names (henceforth referred to as the “disputed domain names”) all incorporate the entirety of each of Complainant’s Las Vegas-based resorts with the addition of the generic or descriptive terms “Vegas”, “Las Vegas”, “resort”, “casino” and/or “hotel”, as well as the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form the disputed domain names.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its STATION marks, nor is Respondent commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods services nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the similarity of the disputed domain names to take advantage of the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark to offer competing services.
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent uses the confusingly similar nature of the disputed domain names to attract users with a false impression of association with Complainant. Further, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to offer services competitive to Complainant. Additionally, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATION marks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company that owns and operate numerous luxury resort hotel and casino properties.
2. Complainant has established its rights in the following trademarks, henceforth referred to as the “STATION marks”, through its registration of the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) RED ROCK (e.g., Reg. No.3,424,069 registered May 6, 2008),GREEN VALLEY RANCH (e.g., Reg. No. 2,672,955 registered January 7, 2007), SUNSET STATION (e.g., Reg. No. 2,793,353 registered December 16, 2003), BOULDER STATION (e.g., Reg. No. 4,045,416 registered October 25, 2011), PALACE STATION (e.g., Reg. No. 1,480,097 registered March 8, 1988) and SANTA FE STATION (e.g., Reg. No. 2,592,683 registered on July 9, 2002).
3. Respondent registered the <palacestationhotellasvegas.com>, the <greenvalleyranchresortcasino.com>, the <santafestationhotellasvegas.com> and the <boulderstationcasinolasvegas.com> domain names on July11, 2022, the <redrockcasinoresortvegas.com> on July 12, 2022 and the <sunsetstationhotelcasino.com> domain name on July 13, 2022.
4. Respondent has used the similarity of the disputed domain names to take advantage of the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark to offer competing services.
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 first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has rights in the STATION marks through its registration of the marks with the USPTO. See Compl. Annex 1. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See H-D Michigan, LLC v. Private Whois Service, FA 1006001328876 (Forum July 12, 2010) (finding that “Complainant has sufficiently registered its HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark with the USPTO to prove Complainant’s rights in the mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), regardless of the fact that Respondent lives or operates outside the United States.”). Since Complainant registered the STATION marks with the USPTO, the Panel finds Complainant has established its rights in the STATION marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATION marks. Complainant argues that Respondent’s <palacestationhotellasvegas.com>, <greenvalleyranchresortcasino.com>,
<santafestationhotellasvegas.com>, <boulderstationcasinolasvegas.com>, <redrockcasinoresortvegas.com> and <sunsetstationhotelcasino.com>, domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATION marks. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), fully incorporating a mark in its entirety and adding a descriptive term fails to distinguish sufficiently a domain name from a registered mark. See Empowered Medical Solutions, Inc. d/b/a QRS-Direct and QRS Magnovit AG v. NULL NULL / QUANTRON RESONANCE SYSTEMS / JIM ANDERSON / HTR / unknown HTR / HTR, FA 1784937 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Adding or removing descriptive terms or a gTLD is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Further, the addition of the “.com” gTLD is irrelevant when determining whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark. See Countrywide Fin. Corp. v. Johnson & Sons Sys., FA 1073019 (Forum Oct. 24, 2007) (holding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” was irrelevant). Respondent’s <palacestationhotellasvegas.com>, <greenvalleyranchresortcasino.com>,
<santafestationhotellasvegas.com> , <boulderstationcasinolasvegas.com>, <redrockcasinoresortvegas.com> and <sunsetstationhotelcasino.com>, domain names all incorporate the STATION marks in their entirety. Each domain contains the name of Complainant’s Las Vegas-based resorts with the addition of the generic or descriptive terms “Vegas”, “Las Vegas”, “resort”, “casino” and/or “hotel”, as well as the “.com” gTLD. The above terms are descriptive because Complainant offers resort, hotel, and casino services in Las Vegas Nevada. See Compl. Annex 3. Therefore, as the Panel agrees, it finds Respondent’s <palacestationhotellasvegas.com>, <greenvalleyranchresortcasino.com>,
<santafestationhotellasvegas.com>, <boulderstationcasinolasvegas.com>, <redrockcasinoresortvegas.com> and <sunsetstationhotelcasino.com>, domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATION marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have 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)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen to take one of Complainant’s STATION marks and to use it in one of its disputed domain names, adding only the name of one of its Las Vegas-based resorts as referred to above;
(b) Respondent registered the <palacestationhotellasvegas.com>, the <greenvalleyranchresortcasino.com>, the <santafestationhotellasvegas.com> and the <boulderstationcasinolasvegas.com> domain names on July11, 2022, the <redrockcasinoresortvegas.com> on July 12, 2022 and the <sunsetstationhotelcasino.com> domain name on July 13, 2022;
(c) Respondent has used the similarity of the disputed domain names to take advantage of the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark to offer competing services;
(d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(e) Complainant contends Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the STATION marks. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), information in the record that reveals that a registrant’s name is materially different from the disputed domain name may be used to determine that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM , FA 740335 (Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record). Further, lack of authorization to use a Complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). WHOIS information for the Disputed Domain Names lists the registrant as “Rammell Lewis / Victor & Mum”. See Registrar Verification Email. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s STATION marks in any of the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(f) Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. A Respondent’s use of a disputed domain name’s resolving webpage in order to offer competing goods or services will not qualify as any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate non-commercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” where “Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services.”). Here, Complainant attaches screenshots of the resolving webpages for the disputed domain names, which all link to an active webpage entitled “Reservations Center” that purports to offer competing hotel reservation and travel booking services under Complainant’s STATION marks. See Compl. Annex 4. As the Panel agrees, it finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent.
As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in any of the disputed domain names.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have not been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names to attract internet users and create a false impression of association with Complainant. Past panels have found bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) when a Respondent used a confusingly similar domain name to attract internet users. See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract internet users to its commercial website). Past panels have also found that use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to offer services in direct competition to a Complainant further illustrates a Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the domain name resolved to a website that offered similar products as those sold under the complainant’s famous mark). The Panel recalls Complainant’s attached screenshots of the disputed domain names, which resolve to a webpage that features offerings of hotel reservation and travel book services arguably in direct competition with Complainant’s own services. Respondent also incorporates Complainant’s STATION marks in whole in the disputed domain name, presumably to attract and divert Internet users. As the Panel agrees, it may find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Secondly, Complainant submits that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATION marks. The Panel will disregard arguments of bad faith based on constructive notice as prior UDRP decisions generally decline to find bad faith as a result of constructive knowledge. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”). Nonetheless, actual notice may be determined by looking at the Respondent’s specific use of the mark, such as use of confusingly similar domain name to offer competing services, which supports a finding that a Respondent had actual knowledge of a Complainant’s mark. See Finex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum January 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). Here, Respondent incorporated Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain names, and purports to offer competing hotel reservation and travel booking services. See Compl. Annex 4. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STATION marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and hence registered the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Thirdly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel
finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names using the STATION marks and in view of the conduct that Respondent has
engaged in when using the domain names, Respondent registered and used them in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <palacestationhotellasvegas.com>, <greenvalleyranchresortcasino.com>,
<santafestationhotellasvegas.com> , <boulderstationcasinolasvegas.com>, <redrockcasinoresortvegas.com> and <sunsetstationhotelcasino.com>, domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC
Panelist
Dated: November 1, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page