NP IP Holdings LLC v. Winsum Wong
Claim Number: FA1606001677731
Complainant is NP IP Holdings LLC (Complainant), represented by Peter H. Ajemian of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Nevada, USA. Respondent is Winsum Wong (Respondent), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <stationscasinos.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Threadwalker.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 2, 2016; the Forum received payment on June 2, 2016.
On June 2, 2016, Threadwalker.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the Domain Name is registered with Threadwalker.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Threadwalker.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Threadwalker.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANNs Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy).
On June 9, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 29, 2016 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondents registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@stationscasinos.com. Also on June 9, 2016, 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
Respondents registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 6, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne Here as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant is the IP holding company for Station Casinos LLC which operates multimillion dollar hotel casinos. Station Casinos has used the mark STATION CASINOS since 1984 in relation to its services and owns US trade mark registrations for the same. It also owns stationcasinos.com.
The Infringing Domain Name, registered in 2014, long after the Complainant began using its mark, is virtually identical to the Complainant's STATION CASINOS mark except for the addition of the s in stations and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) .com which is irrelevant in determining confusing similarity under the Policy. Accordingly the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark under the Policy.
Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. It has not been licensed to use the Domain Name by the Complainant. It has linked the Domain Name to a pay per click advertising web site including links to web sites owned by Station Casino's competitors in the fields of gaming services and hospitality. Accordingly the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith to misdirect Internet users to its own web site redirecting users to links to services which compete with the Complainant. This constitutes disruption and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under Policy Ά 4 (b)(iii) and Policy Ά 4 (b)(iv). The STATION CASINO mark is unique and arbitrary making it unlikely the Respondent devised it on its own.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the IP holding company for Station Casinos LLC which operates multimillion dollar hotel casinos. The Complainant owns US trade mark registrations for STATION CASINOS for, inter alia, gaming and hotel services, registered first in time in 1994. It also owns stationcasinos.com.
The Domain Name has been pointed to pay per click sites offering competing services to the Complainant.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondents failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.).
The Complainant has trade mark registrations for STATION CASINOS in the USA for, inter alia, gaming and hotel related goods and services registered in 1994. The Domain Name, registered in 2014, is very close to the Complainant's mark adding only a single letter s. The Panelist agrees with the Complainant that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's STATION CASINOS mark under the Policy. See Trip Advisor, LLC /Smarter Travel Media LLC/Jetsetter Inc. v Rakshita Mercantile Private Limited, FA 1623459 (Forum July 17, 2015)(finding that the addition of the letter 's' in the tripsdvisosr.com domain name was of no consequence); see also Jerry Damson Inc. v Tex Int'l Prop Assocs FA 916991 (Forum Apr 10, 2007)("The mere addition of a generic top level domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.") As such the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
The Respondent has not responded
to this complaint or explained why it is entitled to register a Domain Name the
distinctive part of which equates to the Complainant's STATION CASINOS mark and
point it to sites competing with the Complainant. The Respondent does not
appear to have any trade marks containing "Stations Casinosand is not
commonly known by this name. The Respondent does not appear to have used the
Domain Name for any bona fide offering of services and is not currently
using the Domain Name for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. See Provide
Commerce Inc. v. e on Craze, FA 1506001626318 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not
making a bona fide offering of services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair
use of the disputed domain name to host generic links to third party web sites
some of which directly competed with the Complainants business). Accordingly, the Panel finds that
the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain
Name under the Policy.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Rules sets out non-exclusive criteria which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith including circumstances where, by using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on‑line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the
complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location and also circumstances where the use is disruptive and competing. Links to third party web sites including those directly competing with the Complainant have appeared on a page attached to the Domain Name for commercial gain. The content of the links shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant, its STATION CASINOS trade mark and its activities. Past panels have held that typosquatting is in itself bad faith under Policy Ά 4 (b)(iii). See Gap Inc. et al v Jiri Capcuch, FA 1405001562139 (Forum July 2, 2014) (held that Respondent addition of a single letter v to the mark was a classic example of cybersquatting). Additionally, by using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on‑line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location contrary to Ά 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The circumstances of the use show knowledge of the Complainant and its business which is also likely to be disruptive under Ά 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. See Alta Vista Co. v Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000)(finding bad faith under Policy Ά 4(b)(iv) where the respondent's domain name resolved to a web site that offered links to third party web sites that offered services similar to the complainants services and merely took advantage of Internet users' mistakes'); see also Health Republic Insurance Co. v Above.com Legal. FA 1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015)('The use of a domain name's resolving web site to host links to competitors shows intent to disrupt that complainants business thereby showing bad faith use and registration under Policy 4 (b) (iii).').Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <stationscasinos.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: July 11, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page