DECISION

 

Boyd Gaming Corporation v. Anastasiia Liutyk

Claim Number: FA2606002229600

 

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.org>, 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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.org> 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 June 30, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 20, 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.org. Also on June 30, 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 21, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) 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 in and to the world-famous STARDUST trademark, which was first used in connection with resort and casino services in 1958. Complainant owns trademark registrations with the USPTO for the STARDUST mark (inter alia, Reg. No. 1,580,234, registered on January 30, 1990, in Class 41). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the STARDUST mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the descriptive term "casino."

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized or licensed by Complainant to use the STARDUST mark. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to attract Internet traffic to a website offering its own casino services is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.

 

iii) 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 itself off as Complainant, promoting competing services. Respondent knew or should have known that it registered the disputed domain name in bad faith to capitalize on consumer recognition of Complainant's marks, and Respondent is using the website to which the disputed domain name resolves to offer services competing with those of Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on May 18, 2026.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the STARDUST mark through its registrations with the USPTO (inter alia, Reg. No. 1,580,234, registered on January 30, 1990, in Class 41).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that impersonates Complainant by prominently displaying the STARDUST mark in a stylization exactly the same as the stylized mark of Complainant, and promotes casino services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

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 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

Complainant asserts rights in the STARDUST mark through its registrations with the USPTO (inter alia, Reg. No. 1,580,234, registered on January 30, 1990, in Class 41). Registration of a mark with the USPTO constitutes valid evidence of trademark rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating its registrations of the STARDUST mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the STARDUST mark.

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name, <stardust-casino.org>, is confusingly similar to its STARDUST mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the descriptive term "casino." The Panel finds that the mere addition of a descriptive term, a hyphen, and a gTLD to Complainant's mark does not negate the confusing similarity with Complainant's mark, and thus concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "Anastasiia Liutyk" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent utilizes it to impersonate Complainant and mislead Internet users.

 

The Panel notes that where Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant, the Panel may find that Respondent has failed to demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's use of the domain name to feature the complainant's mark and related content did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

Complainant has provided a screenshot of the website associated with the disputed domain name, demonstrating that it resolves to a website that prominently features the STARDUST mark in a stylization exactly the same as the stylized mark of Complainant and promotes casino services that compete with those of Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent's impersonation of Complainant to offer competing services does not constitute use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing considerations. All of these matters together establish a prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a response or otherwise sought to rebut this prima facie case, the Panel determines that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that 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 itself off as Complainant, promoting competing services.

 

The Panel observes that where Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant, such conduct can constitute bad faith disruption of Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").

 

As previously noted, Respondent's website associated with the disputed domain name prominently features the STARDUST mark in a stylization exactly the same as the stylized mark of Complainant and promotes casino services that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent's activities related to the disputed domain name create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark, and are likely to mislead Internet users, thereby disrupting Complainant's business and generating commercial benefits through the redirection of users and falsely suggesting an affiliation with Complainant. Consequently, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).

 

Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark. The Panel notes that since at least as early as 1958, Complainant has used the STARDUST mark to identify itself in connection with resort and casino services. Complainant is a leading casino entertainment company, currently owning and operating twenty-eight resort hotel, casino, and gaming properties throughout the United States.

 

Given the widespread recognition of Complainant's mark, together with Respondent's impersonation and passing itself off, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark at the time of registration. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: July 21, 2026