Stationcasino.net

The timeline behind stationcasino.net

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Station Casinos, Inc. v. Teri Vernieri Claim Number: FA0911001294118 PARTIES Complainant is Station Casinos, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Erin E. Lewis, of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Nevada, USA. Respondent is Teri Vernieri (“Respondent”), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <stationcasino.net>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. PANEL 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. Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 11, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 12, 2009. On November 11, 2009, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <stationcasino.net> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On November 13, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 3, 2009 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@stationcasino.net by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On December 9, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <stationcasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATION CASINOS mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <stationcasino.net> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <stationcasino.net> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Station Casinos, Inc., holds several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the STATION CASINOS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,864,405 issued November 22, 1994) in connection with operating several Las Vegas, Nevada casinos and related merchandise. Respondent registered the <stationcasino.net> domain name on June 14, 2009. Respondent is using the <stationcasino.net> domain name to resolve to a website containing links to third-party websites that divert Internet users to Complainant’s competitors such as “The Venetian,” “Vegas Hotel Specials,” and “Great Golf – 24/7 Gaming.” DISCUSSION 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." 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(e), 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 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s 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.”). 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant’s registration of the STATION CASINOS mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in the marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”). The <stationcasino.net> domain name incorporates the dominant features of the STATION CASINOS mark by including both words of the mark, omitting the space between the words and “s” after “casino.” Previous Panels have found that these changes are insignificant. See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i); see also Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the letter “s” from the complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark did not change the overall impression of the mark and thus made the disputed domain name confusingly similar to it). Respondent’s use of the generic top-level domains “.net,” is irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the STATION CASINOS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <stationcasino.net> domain name. If the Panel finds that Complainant’s allegations establish such a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does indeed have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to the guidelines in Policy ¶ 4(c). The Panel finds that Complainant’s allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Since no response was submitted in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <stationcasino.net> domain name. However, the Panel will still examine the record in consideration of the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c). See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Complainant asserts that Respondent has no license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent to use its STATION CASINOS mark, and the WHOIS information identifies the registrant as “Teri Vernieri.” The Panel finds no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <stationcasino.net> domain name and has therefore not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”). Respondent is using the <stationcasino.net> domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATION CASINOS mark, to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s services to third-party websites. Some of these websites are in competition with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds this use is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a noncommercial or legitimate fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 14, 2009. The Panel finds that Respondent is using the <stationcasino.net> domain name to resolve to a website containing links to third-party websites that divert Internet users to Complainant’s competitors such as “The Venetian,” “Vegas Hotel Specials,” and “Great Golf – 24/7 Gaming.” The Panel finds that this use is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites). The website that resolves from the <stationcasino.net> domain name displays links to websites related to and in direct competition with Complainant’s business. The Panel infers that Respondent received either pay-per-click fees or advertising fees for these advertisements. Since the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, Internet users are likely to become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation or sponsorship of the disputed domain name and resolving website. Respondent was seeking to profit from this confusion by hosting advertisements on the resolving website. The Panel finds that this use is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”); see also Philip Morris Inc. v. r9.net, D2003-0004 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s registration of an infringing domain name to redirect Internet users to banner advertisements constituted bad faith use of the domain name). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <stationcasino.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist Dated: December 17, 2009 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.