DECISION

 

Boyd Gaming Corporation v. Anastasiia Liutyk

Claim Number: FA2606002229495

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Boyd Gaming Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Daniel H. Bliss of HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Anastasiia Liutyk ("Respondent"), Ukraine.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <stardust-casino.net>, registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

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 June 26, 2026; Forum received payment on June 26, 2026.

 

On June 29, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <stardust-casino.net> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc 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 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 22, 2026 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@stardust-casino.net. Also on July 2, 2026, 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 23, 2026, 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 in part as follows:

 

The Complaint is based on U.S. trademark registrations for STARDUST.

 

Respondent's Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to the STARDUST Marks in Which Complainant Has Rights. Complainant is a leading casino entertainment company, currently owning and operating twenty-eight resort hotel casino and gaming properties throughout the United States. Complainant owns all rights and interests to the world-famous STARDUST trademark, first used in connection with the Stardust Resort and Casino in 1958. Today, Complainant continues to use its STARDUST trademark in connection with hotel and casino services in addition to a wide variety of other related goods and services at its destination resorts including resort hotel services. The addition of descriptive terms and generic top-level domains is not relevant in determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark under UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant marks because the domain name includes "STARDUST" of the Complainant marks in its entirety and the wording "casino", before the generic top-level domain (gTLD) ".net". These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in Respect of the At-issue Domain Name. Complainant owns all rights and interests to the world-famous STARDUST trademark, first used in connection with the Stardust Resort and Casino in 1958. Complainant and its predecessors-in-interest have used the STARDUST trademark in connection with their hotel and casino services since that time. Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer, or distributor of Complainant's services or otherwise authorized to use the name or the Complainant marks for any purpose. The at-issue domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, promoting competing services of Complainant's services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. Use of the at-issue domain name by Respondent to attract Internet traffic to a website offering Respondent's casino services is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.

 

The At-issue Domain Name Has Been Registered and Is Being Used in Bad Faith. Respondent owns the domain <stardust-casino.net> and has been using this domain since May 20, 2026. Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark and is using it for a website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, promoting competing services. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. Respondent is also not commonly known as the at-issue domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its STARDUST trademarks. Respondent therefore does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain as contemplated by UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent knew or should have known that it registered the domain name in bad faith to capitalize on consumer recognition of the Complainant marks and is using the website to which the domain name resolves to offer competing services of Complainant. Respondent had knowledge of Complainant and is using the website to which the domain name resolves to offer competing services of Complainant in an attempt to mislead the Complainant's customers. Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to direct Complainant's customers to a page impersonating the Complainant and containing competing. Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to confuse Internet traffic seeking the Complainant. Respondent has no rights in the at-issue domain name, and the Respondent improperly registered the domain name in bad faith and did violate Policy ¶ 4(b).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the STARDUST mark.

 

Complainant's rights in STARDUST predate Respondent's registration of <stardust-casino.net>.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website looking like it is authorized by Complainant where Respondent purports to offer casino gaming services .

 

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 3.1 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 names is confusingly similar or identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO registrations for its STARDUST trademark. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in the STARDUST mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <stardust-casino.net> domain name consists of Complainant's STARDUST trademark followed by an insignificant hyphen and the suggestive term "casino," with all followed by the top-level domain name ".net." The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's STARDUST trademark are insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from STARDUST for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <stardust-casino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's STARDUST trademark. 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.")

 

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, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

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 legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for <stardust-casino.net> leads to identifying <stardust-casino.net>'s registrant as "Anastasiia Liutyk" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <stardust-casino.net> or any variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 at-issue domain name to address a website that appears like it may be a genuine or authorized website of Complainant. The <stardust-casino.net> website is titled with Complainant's stylized STARDUST trademark and webpages display such word mark followed by the term "casino." There, Respondent purports to operate an online casino. Respondent's use of <stardust-casino.net> to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's website is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant").

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <stardust-casino.net>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

As mentioned above, Respondent uses <stardust-casino.net> to address a website looking like it might be an authorized website of Complainant that provides online casino services. Respondent's use of <stardust-casino.net> to pass off as Complainant or an agent of Complainant and offer online casino type gaming services similar to Complainant's offering is disruptive to Complainant's business and intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might wrongfully capitalize on the confusion it created between its <stardust-casino.net> domain name and Complainant's STARDUST trademark. Respondent's use of <stardust-casino.net> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA 1841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant");see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).")

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the STARDUST mark when it registered <stardust-casino.net> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the fame of Complainant's STARDUST trademark and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website that provides services much like those services provided by Complainant under its STARDUST mark. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in STARDUST further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, 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); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION 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 <stardust-casino.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: July 23, 2026