Ma-wynn.org + 4 more domains

The timeline behind ma-wynn.org

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 Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC v. pams data / PAMS DATA SOLUTONS (M) SDN BHD / Duangkamol Pengpit / Sarinee Ritsong / TeamFusion / NANTAWADEE SAOON / Rungrote Pholsiri Claim Number: FA2501002137674 PARTIES Complainant is Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Peter H. Ajemian of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Nevada, USA. Respondent is pams data / PAMS DATA SOLUTONS (M) SDN BHD / Duangkamol Pengpit / Sarinee Ritsong / TeamFusion / NANTAWADEE SAOON / Rungrote Pholsiri ("Respondent"), Malaysia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <ma-wynn.org>, <ma-wynn.net>, <mawynn.org>, <mawynn.net> and <ma-wynn.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 29, 2025; Forum received payment on January 29, 2025. On January 30, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ma-wynn.org>, <ma-wynn.net>, <mawynn.org>, <mawynn.net> and <ma-wynn.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 February 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 25, 2025 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@ma-wynn.org, postmaster@ma-wynn.net, postmaster@mawynn.org, postmaster@mawynn.net and postmaster@ma-wynn.com. Also on February 5, 2025, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 a formal response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS In this proceeding there are 5 domain names and 5 registrants. This immediately raises the question whether the proceeding is a valid one. That is because Rule 3(c) of the (UDRP) Rules provides that "(t)he complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder." The Complainant has raised the question whether the separate disputes may be consolidated or alternatively whether it can be said that the five named registrants are in reality "the same domain-name holder". The Panel takes the view that this latter question should be resolved first. There are several provisions in Forum's Supplemental Rules to the effect that this course may be followed. Thus, Supplemental Rule 1(d) provides that a complainant may "make an argument for a single Respondent having multiple aliases" and Supplemental Rule 4(c)(i) provides: "Any arguments alleging Respondent aliases must be included in the Complaint for Panel consideration. (i) All Complaints alleging multiple aliases will be subject to an increased filing fee (see Supp. Rule 17 (a)(i))." The Complainant's argument is in effect that there is a single Respondent who has several aliases who are the other nominal Respondents. When this question has been presented to panels, they have looked at all the circumstances to see if aliases have been used. Some factors that have been seen to be compelling are similar website content, a similar naming convention in the domain names, similar WHOIS information and other common themes. As the Complainant submits, there are many common themes and interrelations between the domain names in this case showing that there is "common control" of all of the domain names. It submits that there is a single person apparently behind the registrations, namely MA WYNN, the domain names resolve to websites with identical or substantially similar designs, including a stylized "MA WYNN" logo, the websites are similar in appearance, the domain names have the same Registrar and if the domain names are not accepted as having the one domain name holder, there will have to be multiple new Complaints filed for little practicable benefit. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a strong case consisting of all of those elements. Moreover, all the domain names were registered around the same time. It is of course possible that all of this can be explained as a miraculous coincidence, but it is far more likely, and the Panel finds that it is certain, that several parties are in cahoots with each other or with an un-named mastermind to launch the same co-ordinated attack on the Complainant and its brands. Thus, the Panel is in no doubt that this is a case where there is "a single Respondent having multiple aliases". Consequently, the domain names are registered by "the same domain-name holder" within the meaning of Rule 3(c). The proceeding may therefore go forward on that basis. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER On February 19, 2025, Forum received an email stating in substance: We would like to inform you that we are actually web hosting and purchase the domain on behalf of our Clients. We have already informed our clients on Ma-Wynn.com. We received a reply from our clients informing us that they would prefer to take down the website and remove the used on the reported domain name. We have already taken the next step and successfully taken down the website and the domain name, on behalf of our clients. We are writing to you just to inform you that we have successfully taken down the website and domain as the client instructed and has no interest to pursue further on this matter's engagements. This might be seen by some as a request to transfer the disputed domain names by consent. However, the Panel does not see it in that light and will not order that the domain names be transferred by consent. That is so for the following reasons. The email does not relate to all of the disputed domain names but only to one. Nor does it convey consent by the Respondent to transfer that domain name but only to remove its resolving website and the use of the domain name. Nor does the Complainant expressly or by implication consent to the transfer of that domain name without a hearing and decision on the merits. Even if the email related to all of the domain names and were in the form of a proper consent, the Panel would not order a transfer by consent on the material that has been presented. The Panel is concerned that the Respondent's email constitutes a bad faith attempt to avoid a determination that would expose its cybersquatting. See Coulter Ventures, LLC d/b/a Rogue Fitness v. Justin Wood, FA 2017532 (Forum Nov. 7, 2022) ("[T]he "consent-to-transfer" approach is but one way for cybersquatters to avoid adverse findings against them…. Therefore, the Panel decides to analyze the case under the elements of the UDRP."); World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Patricki Chites, FA 1972033 (Forum Nov. 17, 2021) ("The Panel also notes that consent to transfer is often an attempt by cybersquatters to avoid adverse findings against them. The Panel determines that it will analyze the case under the elements of the UDRP."); and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. David Espinoza, FA 1958096 (Forum Aug. 31, 2021) ("The Panel also notes that the "consent-to-transfer" approach is one way for cybersquatters to avoid adverse findings against them. The Panel will decide this case on the merits."). Apart from that, the conduct of the Respondent, which it has not denied, is so egregious, as will be seen, that there is a public interest in recording, analysing and making a judgement on that conduct by way of a reasoned panel decision. For those reasons, the Panel will determine the case on its merits. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant made the following contentions. 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of casino, gaming, gambling and related goods and services. 2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for WYNN with respect to casino, gaming and related services. In particular, the evidence will establish that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the WYNN trademark by virtue of its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration Number 2,998,762, registered on September 20, 2005 and numerous other trademarks for WYNN and derivatives (collectively "the WYNN trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. 3. The WYNN trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services. 4. As well as its trademark, the Complainant has registered the domain names <wynnlasvegas.com> and <wynnmacau.com>, among others, that it uses for websites where it offers and markets its products and services, in particular its online activities in casino, gaming, gambling and related services as aforesaid under the WYNN trademark. 5. The Respondent registered the following domain names on their respective dates, namely: (a) <ma-wynn.org> on January 10, 2025; (b) <ma-wynn.net> on January 8, 2025; (c) <mawynn.org> on January 9, 2025; (d) <mawynn.net> on January 8, 2025; and (e) <ma-wynn.com> on November 29, 2025 ("the disputed domain names"). 6. The disputed domain names embody without the consent of the Complainant, the WYNN trademark with the addition to each domain name of the prefix "ma", the addition in three domain names of a hyphen and in each domain name one of the respective generic Top Level Domains ".org", ".net", ".org", ".net" and ".com". 7. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the WYNN trademark. 8. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. That is so because: (a) the Respondent has caused each of the disputed domain names to resolve to an illegitimate website which prominently displays the WYNN trademark in connection with the provision of online gambling services and casino-related services creating a false consumer association with the Complainant, its name and trademark; (b) the Respondent's aforesaid conduct is calculated to mislead internet users into believing that the domain names are domain names of the Complainant or are authorized by it, which they are not; (c) the aforesaid conduct of the Respondent is an infringement of the Complainant's WYNN trademark; (d) the Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); and (e) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in any of the disputed domain names. 9. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. That is so because: (a) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its WYNN trademark when it registered the disputed domain names; (b) the Respondent's aforesaid conduct is tantamount to fraud, misleading to internet users, trafficking on the established goodwill and reputation of the Complainant and its trademark and blatant trademark infringement; (c) by reason of the Respondent's aforesaid conduct, it has sought to pass itself off as the Complainant, divert internet users away from the Complainant's official websites to the Respondent's offending websites and to generate confusion within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) for its own commercial gain; and (d) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. On February 19, 2025, Forum received an email the contents of which are set out above. FINDINGS 1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of casino, gaming, gambling and related goods and services. 2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for WYNN with respect to casino, gaming and gambling and related services. In particular, the evidence will establish that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the WYNN trademark by virtue of its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration Number 2,998,762, registered on September 20, 2005 and numerous other trademarks for WYNN and derivatives (collectively "the WYNN trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. 3. The Respondent registered the following domain names on their respective dates, namely: (a) <ma-wynn.org> on January 10, 2025; (b) <ma-wynn.net> on January 8, 2025; (c) <mawynn.org> on January 9, 2025; (d) <mawynn.net> on January 8, 2025; and (e) <ma-wynn.com> on November 29, 2025 ("the disputed domain names"). 4. The disputed domain names embody without the consent of the Complainant, the WYNN trademark with the addition in each domain name of the prefix "ma", the addition in three domain names of a hyphen and in each domain name one of the respective generic Top Level Domains ".org", ".net", ".org", ".net" and ".com". 5. The Respondent has caused each of the disputed domain names to resolve to an illegitimate website which prominently displays the WYNN trademark in connection with the provision of gaming, gambling and casino-related services, creating a false consumer association with the Complainant and its trademark, passing itself off as the Complainant and infringing the Complainant's WYNN trademark; 6. By reason of the matters aforesaid and as demonstrated by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's WYNN trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and the domain names have been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith. 7. Accordingly, the disputed domain names should be transferred to the 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 the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain names should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain names registered by the Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and (3) the domain names have been registered and are 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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 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 The first question that arises is whether the Complainant has a trademark or service mark on which it may rely in this proceeding. The evidence has established that the Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for WYNN with respect to casino, gaming, gambling and related services. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the WYNN trademark by virtue of its registration of the trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration Number 2,998,762, registered on September 20, 2005 and numerous other trademarks for WYNN and derivatives (collectively "the WYNN trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services. The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights and hence its standing to bring this proceeding. The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's WYNN trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the WYNN trademark for the following reasons. The disputed domain names embody without the consent of the Complainant, the WYNN trademark with the addition in each domain name of the prefix "ma", the addition in three domain names of a hyphen and in each domain name the respective generic Top Level Domains ".org", ".net", ".org", ".net" and ".com". It is well established that where domain names include the entirety of a trademark, as the domain names do in the present case, it is far more likely than not that the domain names are invoking the trademark, as the trademark is the dominant portion of the domain names, and that must be so in the present case. Internet users would therefore conclude that the principal purpose of the disputed domain names is to invoke the Complainant and its goods and services offered under its trademark. The addition of the prefix "ma" has clearly been made to give the veneer of a name separate from the Complainant, but the substance of the meaning of each domain name is that it is a domain name of the Complainant or one that has been authorised by it. The addition of hyphens is too insignificant to alter the meaning of those domain names where a hyphen has been added. Moreover, the addition of any of the respective Top Level Domains ".org", ".net", ".org", ".net" and ".com" is ignored in the interpretation of a domain name and cannot negate a finding of confusing similarity between the domain names and the trademark, as all domain names require such an extension. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's WYNN trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)). The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations, taken in the order in which they are raised by the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because: (a) the Respondent has caused each of the disputed domain names to resolve to an illegitimate website which prominently displays the WYNN trademark in connection with the provision of casino, gaming, gambling and related services, creating a false consumer association with the Complainant, its name and trademark; this is amply demonstrated by the Complainant's Annex 5, which consists of screenshots of the offending websites to which the disputed domain names resolve; they are replete with prominent and frequent refences to and uses of the Complainant's WYNN trademark either by itself or as "MA WYNN" and are clearly designed to pretend that the websites are official sites of the Complainant or are authorised by it; moreover, page after page contain text, some of it in English, including the following: "Live Casino", "jackpots", "slot", "Enter to Win", "Mawynn Play Real Payouts Fast Popular Online Gambling Trending", "Download on the (Apple symbol) App Store", "Easy to access casino games with mawynn", "this online casino", "poker" and "lottery" as well as references such as "log on" and "subscribe"; the services offered are substantially the same as the Complainant's offerings under its trademark; the websites are therefore intended to give the false impression that they are official offerings of the Complainant or authorised by it when the evidence is that they are not; there is no way that this conduct gives rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain names used to perpetrate this subterfuge; (b) the Respondent's aforesaid conduct is calculated to mislead internet users into believing that the domain names are domain names of the Complainant or authorized by it, which they are not; there is no doubt that the foregoing use of the domain names is intended to engender the entirely false notion that this is all the work of the Complainant itself because its trademark is used so frequently, or that it is authorised by the Complainant; (c) the aforesaid conduct of the Respondent is an infringement of the Complainant's WYNN trademark; the conduct amounts to trademark infringement of the most brazen nature; (d) the Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain names, commonly or otherwise and there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by any name other than its own; and (e) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in any of the disputed domain names; the Respondent's conduct cannot be accepted as anything remotely like a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Complainant has therefore made out all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. As the Respondent has not filed a formal Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. The Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish. Registration and Use in Bad Faith It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in the Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. The Complainant has submitted on several grounds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. In view of the evidence discussed above, which is equally applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on, as the Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration and use of the domain names and in particular in the deception in which it has engaged. In particular, it is clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted: (a) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its WYNN trademark when it registered the disputed domain names; the only conclusion that can be reached on this issue is that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its WYNN trademark when it registered the disputed domain names; that is so because it has clearly used the trademark and it was pivotal to the Respondent's deceptive conduct that it actually knew the Complainant's name, trademark and brand; it could not have set up its websites without having such actual knowledge; (b) the Respondent's aforesaid conduct is tantamount to fraud, misleading to internet users, trafficking on the established goodwill and reputation of the Complainant and its trademark and blatant trademark infringement; this has clearly been made out on the evidence; (c) by reason of the Respondent's aforesaid conduct, it has sought to pass itself off as the Complainant, divert internet users away from the Complainant's official websites to the Respondent's offending websites and to generate confusion within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) for its own commercial gain; the Respondent's conduct is a classic case of passing off, as it is of the intention to divert internet users away from the trademark owner and to the destination of an imposter, as well as the intention and attempt to generate confusion between the website of the true owner and the website of the imposter; and (d) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have shown that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names using the WYNN trademark and in view of the conduct of the Respondent, as shown by all of the available evidence, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish. The Complainant has also correctly cited several prior UDRP decisions that support all of its contentions. The Complainant has therefore established all of the elements that it must show under the Policy and is entitled to the relief it seeks. 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 <ma-wynn.org>, <ma-wynn.net>, <mawynn.org>, <mawynn.net> and <ma-wynn.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from the Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC Panelist Dated: February 27, 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.