DECISION

 

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. Timucin Devirmis

Claim Number: FA2507002164633

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community ("Complainant"), represented by Tore T. DeBella of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Timucin Devirmis ("Respondent"), Turkey.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <myysticlake.com>, <mystticlake.com>, <mystiiclake.com>, <mysticllake.com>, <mysticlike.com>, <mysticlakeske.com>, <mysticlakenl.com>, <mysticlakeie.com>, <mysticlaake.com>, <mysticclake.com>, <myssticlake.com>, <mysticllakei.com>, <mysticllakee.com>, <mysticlaki.com>, <mysticlakel.com>, <mysticlakei.com>, and <mysticalake.com> ('the Domain Names'), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 8, 2025; Forum received payment on July 8, 2025.

 

On July 8, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <myysticlake.com>, <mystticlake.com>, <mystiiclake.com>, <mysticllake.com>, <mysticlike.com>, <mysticlakeske.com>, <mysticlakenl.com>, <mysticlakeie.com>, <mysticlaake.com>, <mysticclake.com>, <myssticlake.com>, <mysticllakei.com>, <mysticllakee.com>, <mysticlaki.com>, <mysticlakel.com>, <mysticlakei.com>, and <mysticalake.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 July 10, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 30, 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@myysticlake.com, postmaster@mystticlake.com, postmaster@mystiiclake.com, postmaster@mysticllake.com, postmaster@mysticlike.com, postmaster@mysticlakeske.com, postmaster@mysticlakenl.com, postmaster@mysticlakeie.com, postmaster@mysticlaake.com, postmaster@mysticclake.com, postmaster@myssticlake.com, postmaster@mysticllakei.com, postmaster@mysticllakee.com, postmaster@mysticlaki.com, postmaster@mysticlakel.com, postmaster@mysticlakei.com, and postmaster@mysticalake.com. Also on July 10, 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 July 31, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:

 

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark MYSTIC LAKE, registered, inter alia, in the USA for casino services since 1995.

 

The Domain Names all registered in June 2025 are confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark all consisting of a misspelling of the Complainant's mark and the gTLD .com.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names and has not been authorised by the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark or misspellings of it. The Domain Names are typosquatting registrations that have been used to pointed to clones of the Complainant's web site impersonating the Complainant which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a non commercial legitimate fair use. Unfortunately the sites were taken down before the Complainant could get screenshots.

 

Respondent has used confusingly similar domain names in opportunistic bad faith to resolve to a clone of the Complainant's site to cause confusion for commercial gain, causing disruption to the Complainant's business. Typosquatting is bad faith per se.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark MYSTIC LAKE, registered, inter alia, in the USA for casino services since 2025.

 

The Domain Names all registered in June 2025 are typosquatting registrations. 

 

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 Domain Names each consist of a misspelled version of the Complainant's MYSTIC LAKE mark (which is registered in USA for casino services since 1995) either substituting or adding a single letter or letters and adding the gTLD .com.

 

The Panel agrees that misspellings such as the substitution or addition of a letter or letters do not distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Coachella Music Festival LLC v Domain Administrator/China Capital Investment Limited, FA 1734230 (Forum July 17, 2017).

 

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Names from the 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 for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark or misspellings of it. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Names. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (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 Domain Names appear to be typosquatting registrations differing from the Complainant's mark by only one letter or a few letters. Typosquatting is an indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA 1610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) ("Users might mistakenly reach Respondent's resolving website by misspelling Complainant's mark. Taking advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).").

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant.

 

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

The Domain Names seek to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make typographical errors. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant's mark and be taken to the Respondent's site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) ("Respondent's domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent's actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.").

 

The panel also notes the registration of multiple Domain Names containing the trade mark of the Complainant or mispellings of it suggesting a pattern of activity. See NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA 1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding that registration of several infringing domain names in a case satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).

 

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.

 

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 <myysticlake.com>, <mystticlake.com>, <mystiiclake.com>, <mysticllake.com>, <mysticlike.com>, <mysticlakeske.com>, <mysticlakenl.com>, <mysticlakeie.com>, <mysticlaake.com>, <mysticclake.com>, <myssticlake.com>, <mysticllakei.com>, <mysticllakee.com>, <mysticlaki.com>, <mysticlakel.com>, <mysticlakei.com>, and <mysticalake.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: July 31, 2025