Westmore · UDRP DecisionWynn100.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <wynn100.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WYNN trademark because it incorporated WYNN in full and merely added the number “100.” The Complainant established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, which the non-responding Respondent did not rebut. Bad faith registration and use were found from the domain’s use for online gambling advertisements and pornographic material, including commercial attraction for click-through revenue and tarnishment of the WYNN mark.
The timeline behind wynn100.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind wynn100.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward UDRP transfer where a domain reproduces a registered mark, adds only a number, and is used for monetized gambling advertisements alongside pornographic material. The Panel treated the commercial advertising and tarnishing content as strong evidence of bad faith, while the absence of authorization and an unrebutted prima facie case resolved the rights-or-legitimate-interests inquiry.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC v. xiaoxiao wang Case No. D2019-1900 1. The Parties The Complainant is Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC, United States of America, represented by Mayer Brown LLP, China. The Respondent is xiaoxiao wang, Cambodia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <wynn100.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 6, 2019. On August 6, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 6, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 14, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 3, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 4, 2019. The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on September 10, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant, established in Nevada of United States of America, is a company that owns Wynn Resorts, Limited. Together with Wynn Resorts, Limited, they are designers, developers, operators of integrated resorts. Wynn Resorts, Limited has been listed on Nasdaq Stock Exchange since 2002 and included as part of the NASDAQ-100 Index since 2004. The Complainant operates its resorts in the United States of America, Macau, China and China. The Complainant is also the owner of various WYNN trademarks in different jurisdictions, including China Trademark Registration No. 5619194, registered on October 21, 2009; Hong Kong, China Trademark Registration No. 302494206, registered on with effect from January 14, 2013; Cambodia trademark registration No. SM69979 registered on May 22, 2012. The Complainant also owns various domain names, including <wynnresorts.com>, created on May 2, 2000; <wynnlasvegas.com>, created on July 23, 2000; <wynnpoker.com>, created on February 14, 2001; <wynnpalace.com>, created on April 6, 2001 and <wynnmacau.com>, created on July 11, 2002. The Respondent is an individual based in Cambodia. The disputed domain name was registered on July 18, 2019 and resolves to a page with various Chinese gambling advertisements which promote online gambling in Macau, China as well as featuring pornographic images. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends as follows: Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <wynn100.com> and the trademark WYNN are confusingly similar. The disputed domain name contains WYNN in its entirety as the distinctive part of the disputed domain name. The additional number “100” included has no distinctiveness and does not lessen or eliminate the degree of confusingly similarity of the disputed domain name to the WYNN trademark. No rights or legitimate interests The Respondent has no connection with the Complainant or any of its affiliates and has never sought or obtained any trademark registrations for WYNN. It, therefore, has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registered and used in bad faith The Complainant submits that there is no doubt that before registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights in the WYNN trademark given its worldwide reputation and the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name and/or to disrupt the Complainant’s business. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Substantive Issues To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being use in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <wynn100.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s WYNN mark in full with the additional number “100”. The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not responded to the Complainant to assert any rights or legitimate interests. Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), provides: “While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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.” The Complainant is internationally well known and owns several WYNN trademarks in the world. The Respondent has no business or any kind of relationships (licensor, distributor) with the Complainant. The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Considering the absence of a response by the Respondent and the fact that the Respondent was granted neither a license nor an authorization to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel finds the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <wynn100.com> was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Based on the evidence, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name <wynn100.com> was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. The current advertisements for online gambling and pornography on the site the disputed domain name resolves to establish the Respondent is making a commercial gain from the site by attracting users to generate click through revenue. Further, the pornographic materials on the website, tarnish the WYNN trademark. This has been found in previous UDRP cases to constitute evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. (See WIPO Overview 3.0 , Section 3.12 ) The third part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <wynn100.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Douglas Clark Sole Panelist Date: September 23, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around wynn100.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.