DECISION

 

Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC v. Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC

Claim Number: FA2502002139927

PARTIES

Complainant is Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Peter H. Ajemian of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Nevada, USA. Respondent is Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wynnresorts.ai>, registered with 1API GmbH.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 12, 2025; Forum received payment on February 12, 2025.

 

On February 13, 2025, 1API GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wynnresorts.ai> domain name is registered with 1API GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1API GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1API GmbH 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 February 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 6, 2025 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@wynnresorts.ai. Also on February 14, 2025, 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 March 7, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Complainant, Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC, is a limited liability company with its principle place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wynn Resorts, Limited owner and operator of the luxury casino resorts Wynn Las Vegas and Encore in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Wynn Macau in Macau, China.

 

Since at least as early as April 28, 2005, Complainant has continuously used the WYNN trademark in connection with casino, hotel resort, restaurant, bar, spa and entertainment services, among other goods and services.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations for WYNN and WYNN RESORTS with the USPTO. The at-issue domain name incorporates Complainant's entire WYNN and WYNN RESORTS trademarks only adding the generic top-level domain ".ai." Despite Respondent's use of the generic top-level ".ai" which is irrelevant in determining confusing similarity, the at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's WYNN trademarks.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not using the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

Instead, Respondent has linked the domain to a "pay-per-click" advertising website, featuring links to commercial websites offering various goods and services, including resort and hotel services. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the text of any component of the <wynnresorts.ai> domain name. Rather, all evidence suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the name "Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC," as indicated by the identifying information in relevant Whois account.

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. At the time Respondent registered <wynnresorts.ai> Complainant had filed and/or secured registrations for the famous WYNN marks, giving Respondent constructive notice of the marks. Respondent also had actual notice of the WYNN marks at the time of <wynnresorts.ai>'s registration. Respondent then failed to link the domain to an active website which is further evidence of Respondent's bad faith. Respondent wrongfully diverts the public from visiting Complainant's websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademarks, resulting in commercial gain for Respondent and commercial harm to Complainant. Respondent seeks to profit off the goodwill in the WYNN marks.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the WYNN and WYNN RESORTS trademarks.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the WYNN and WYNN RESORTS.

 

Respondent uses the <wynnresorts.ai> domain name to host a parking page displaying pay-per-click links.

 

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 3.0 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO trademark registrations for its WYNN and WYNN RESORTS marks. Any of Complainant's trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).

 

Respondent's <wynnresorts.ai> domain name contains Complainant's WYNN and WYNN RESORTS trademarks less the latter's irrelevant space, followed by the ".ai" top-level domain name. The differences between either of Complainant's trademarks and Respondent's domain name are insufficient to distinguish either trademark from the domain name for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <wynnresorts.ai> domain name is confusingly similar to both Complainant's WYNN and Complainant's WYNN RESORTS trademarks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA2 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023)("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.").

 

The WHOIS information for <wynnresorts.ai> indicates that "Registration Private Domains By Proxy, LCC" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that supports a finding that Respondent is commonly known by <wynnresorts.ai>. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar <wynnresorts.ai> domain name to address a parking page hosting pay-per-click links. Respondent's use of the <wynnresorts.ai> domain name is thus not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) ("Respondent's use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.")

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <wynnresorts.ai>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

Respondent is using its confusingly similar <wynnresorts.ai> domain name to address a parking page displaying pay-per-click links. Using the domain name in such manner is disruptive to Complainant's business, takes unfair advantage of the confusion between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark, and indicates Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA1403001549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the WYNN and WYNN RESORTS marks when it registered <wynnresorts.ai> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's trademarks is apparent from the marks' fame and provides additional evidence of Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the <wynnresorts.ai> domain name. See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <wynnresorts.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: March 7, 2025