Redrock88.com, Redrock888.com

The timeline behind redrock88.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 LLC v. LW Leong Claim Number: FA2501002135678 PARTIES Complainant is Station Casinos LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Lindsey A. McDougall of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, United States. Respondent is LW Leong ("Respondent"), Malaysia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <redrock88.com> and <redrock888.com>, registered with Cloudflare, 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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 16, 2025; Forum received payment on January 16, 2025. On January 20, 2025, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <redrock88.com> and <redrock888.com> domain names are registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, 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 January 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 18, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@redrock88.com, postmaster@redrock888.com. Also on January 27, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 February 19, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is the owner and operator of luxury resort hotel and casino properties in Las Vegas, Nevada, including the Red Rock Casino Resort Spa. Complainant has used RED ROCK and related marks in connection with resort hotel and casino services and other goods and services since at least as early as 2006. Complainant owns longstanding United States trademark registrations for RED ROCK in standard character form and for other related marks. The disputed domain names <redrock888.com> and <redrock88.com> were registered in August and September 2023, respectively. The names are registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration records. The <redrock88.com> domain name does not resolve to a website. The <redrock888.com> domain name is being used for an online casino website that prominently displays the RED ROCK mark. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and is not authorized to use Complainant's marks. Complainant contends on the above grounds that each of the disputed domain names <redrock88.com> and <redrock888.com> are confusingly similar to its RED ROCK mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Each of the disputed domain names <redrock88.com> and <redrock888.com> incorporates Complainant's registered RED ROCK trademark, omitting the space and adding a number ("88" or "888") and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Station Casinos LLC v. Gam Lore / Gamlore Co., FA 2100543 (Forum July 3, 2024) (finding <red-rock.live> identical or confusingly similar to RED ROCK); Station Casinos LLC v. V. Power, FA 1655035 (Forum Feb. 12, 2016) (finding <redrockresorts.com> confusingly similar to RED ROCK); Coupang Corp. v. Zheng Jun Jiang, FA 1963447 (Forum Oct. 8, 2021) (finding <coupang88.com> and <coupang888.com> confusingly similar to COUPANG). The Panel considers the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark without authorization. The only apparent use to which either domain name has been put is a website that uses Complainant's mark to promote related or competing services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Station Casinos LLC v. Gam Lore / Gamlore Co., supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent registered two domain names incorporating Complainant's registered mark. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of one of the domain names, and is using the other for a website that uses Complainant's mark to promote related or competing services. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Station Casinos LLC v. Gam Lore / Gamlore Co., supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <redrock88.com> and <redrock888.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: February 19, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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