DECISION

 

Rush Street Gaming, LLC v. Melona Richards

Claim Number: FA2503002145285

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Rush Street Gaming, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by John L Krieger of Dickinson Wright PLLC, Nevada, USA. Respondent is Melona Richards ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <betriverscasino-online.com> (the "disputed domain name"), registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.

 

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.

 

Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 14, 2025; Forum received payment on March 14, 2025.

 

On March 17, 2025, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <betriverscasino-online.com> disputed domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 March 24, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 14, 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@betriverscasino-online.com. Also on March 24, 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 April 17, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware, United States, located in Chicago, Illinois, United States. Complainant is a leading developer of regional destination casinos in North America, and a trailblazer and leader in legal online casinos and sports betting.

 

Complainant owns the following trademark through the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), among others, including in Canada: BETRIVERS, United States Registration No. 6,054,929, registered on May 12, 2020, in International Class 41 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "BETRIVERS Mark"). Complainant also owns the domain name <betrivers.com>, which resolves to its official website at "www.betrivers.com".

 

Complainant used its BETRIVERS Mark in connection with online casino and sports betting services since as early as 2019 and currently operates in 15 states in the United States, as well as Canada. It has expended significant resources in the protection, enforcement, and advertising of these trademarks. By virtue of its exclusive use of the BETRIVERS Mark, Complainant has accrued substantial goodwill in its BETRIVERS Mark.

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BETRIVERS Mark. The disputed domain name adds the terms "casino" and "online", joined by a hyphen, and then followed by the ".com" generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD"), which does not prevent confusing similarity under the Policy. Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as, among other reasons, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the BETRIVERS Mark, and Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, or association with Complainant. Finally, Complainant claims that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith since Respondent uses it primarily to disrupt Complainant's business, and Respondent is attempting to deceive and mislead consumers by fraudulently inducing them into signing up for Respondent's "Slots of Vegas" website by impersonating Complainant and its casinos.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on January 30, 2025 and resolves to a website that displays Complainant's recently updated design mark. Upon clicking on the "Sign In" link on Respondent's website, the user is directed to an online casino named "Slots of Vegas".

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that Complainant owns trademark rights in the BETRIVERS Mark, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BETRIVERS Mark, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and

(3)       the disputed 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BETRIVERS Mark as set forth below.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BETRIVERS Mark per Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) through its registration of the trademark with the USPTO (United States Trademark Registration No. 6,054,929, registered on May 12, 2020, in International Class 41). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a trademark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).").

 

The Panel next finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BETRIVERS Mark. The disputed domain name consists of the BETRIVERS Mark in its entirety, followed by the terms "casino" and "online", joined by a hyphen, and then followed by the ".com" gTLD. Under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i), the addition of terms and gTLD to a mark is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a trademark because where a trademark is recognizable in a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See 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.").

 

Moreover, it is well established that a disputed domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of a hyphen. The presence or absence of a punctuation mark such as a hyphen cannot on its own avoid a finding of confusing similarity. See Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Helen Siew, WIPO Case No. D2004-0656.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of "proving a negative", requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent.

 

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 disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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."). Here, the Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

The Panel concurs with Complainant that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent has not proven that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the BETRIVERS Mark. The Panel further concludes that Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant.

 

Further, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use as Respondent impersonates Complainant and its casinos through its use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website displaying Complainant's BETRIVERS Mark. Complainant provides a screenshot of Respondent's resolving website as an Annex to the Complaint.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainant.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

This Panel finds that, based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy as described below.

 

First, the use of a disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent's website or online location by creating a likelihood of confusion or a false association with a complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant's website or online location demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006).

 

Second, where a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known name, product or service, its use by someone with no connection to the name, product or service indicates opportunistic bad faith. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's registration and use constitutes bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

 

Third, Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by diverting consumers to Respondent's website and by impersonating Complainant by passing off the website as Complainant's. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a respondent's website, which features a complainant's trademark, constitutes bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv).

 

Fourth, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BETRIVERS Mark. In this case, it strains credulity to think that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant's BETRIVERS Mark as the disputed domain name chosen by Respondent uses the BETRIVERS Mark in its entirety and resolves to a websites that impersonates Complainant. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (finding actual knowledge due to the domain name chosen and the use made of it); Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware" of the complainant's mark at the time of registration). The foregoing demonstrates that Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the BETRIVERS Mark and in bad faith.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) has been established by Complainant.

 

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 <betriverscasino-online.com> disputed domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Lynda M. Braun, Panelist

Dated: April 25, 2025