Stardustresort.net

The timeline behind stardustresort.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 Boyd Gaming Corporation v. gene menechino / Old BarN Ltd Claim Number: FA2508002170004 PARTIES Complainant is Boyd Gaming Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Daniel H. Bliss of HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, Michigan, USA. Respondent is gene menechino / Old BarN Ltd ("Respondent"), Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <stardustresort.net>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 6, 2025; Forum received payment on August 6, 2025. On August 7, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <stardustresort.net> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 August 7, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 27, 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@stardustresort.net. Also on August 7, 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 August 28,2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER On August 18, 2025, Respondent sent an email to Forum stating: "We are in receipt of the domain name complaint for Stardustresort.net filed by Boyd Gaming. We will not be challenging their complaint and have agreed to begin the process of changing our branding and website address to a different domain name. Please advise me if there is any further information, I can provide to facilitate the closure of this matter." Respondent has not provided any defense to Complainant's claims to have satisfied the tests in Policy ¶ 4(a), so this Panel will proceed to determine the outcome of the Complaint. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant claims rights in the STARDUST trademark, based on its ownership of the trademark registrations described above and extensive use in its business of casino and resort services. In respect of its claim to rights in the STARDUST mark at common law, Complainant submits that it, and its predecessors in title have used the STARDUST mark since 1958 in connection with the Stardust Resort and Casino, with a global presence, substantial annual revenue, and significant marketing expenditure. The Complaint firstly alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the STARDUST mark in which it has rights arguing that the disputed domain name consists of Complainant's trademark in combination with the descriptive term 'resort' and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.net>. In particular Complainant submits that the addition of descriptive terms and generic top-level domains is not relevant in determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), citing the decision of the panel in Victora's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. MaYun, FA 1426135 (finding that the addition of the descriptive term "bra," which described the complainant's goods, failed to distinguish the <victoriassecretbra.com> domain name from the complainant's VICTORIA'S SECRET mark). Complainant secondly alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because: · Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; · the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization; · Respondent has no authorization to use the STARDUST mark, and is neither a licensee or authorized user of the STARDUST mark; · as shown in a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is used to promote competing services, attempting to pass off as Complainant; · Respondent's sole apparent use has been for a website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, promoting competing services of Complainant's services; · as shown in a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet traffic to a website offering Respondent's resort services and recreational vehicle and motorhome parking services is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. See National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. v. Reyna Reyna, FA 2164727 (Forum Aug. 1, 2025) (finding that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to her website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant). Complainant thirdly alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights at the time of registration. Respondent availed of a privacy registration service to conceal his identity on the published WhoIs and is using the dispute domain name to impersonate Complainant and promote competing services. Respondent's actions are intended to mislead consumers and capitalize on the recognition of Complainant's marks. Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark and is using it for a website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, promoting competing services. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. Respondent knew or should have known that it registered the disputed domain name in bad faith to capitalize on consumer recognition of the Complainant's mark and is using the website to which the Domain resolves to offer competing services of the Complainant. Respondent had knowledge of Complainant and is using the website to which the disputed domain name resolves to confuse Internet traffic seeking the Complainant. On the website Respondent is purporting to offer services competing with those of Complainant in an attempt to mislead the Complainant's customers by directing them to a page impersonating Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a provider of casino services operating resort hotels, casino and gaming properties under the STARDUST mark for which it holds the following service mark registrations: · United States registered trademark and service mark STARDUST, registration number 1,580,234, registered on the Principal Register, January 30, 1990, for goods and services in international classes 28, 29, 41 and 42; · United States registered service mark STARDUST (Design), registration number 3,526,205, registered on the Principal Register, on November 4, 2008 for services in international class 43. The disputed domain name is <stardustresort.net>, registered on August 8, 2023, and resolves to a website purporting to offer resort services and recreational vehicle and motorhome parking services. There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs for the disputed domain name and the response of the Registrar to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy. 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 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 Complainant has provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the STARDUST trademark and service mark established by its the ownership of the above-mentioned trademark registration and extensive use of the mark in its casino, hotel and resort business. The disputed domain name <stardustresort.net> is composed of Complainant's mark in its entirety, in combination with the descriptive word "resort" and the Top-Level Domain (" gTLD") extension <.net>. It is well established that it is sufficient for a complainant to establish that the domain name at issue contains the mark relied upon in its entirety, to satisfy the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In the circumstances of this Complaint the generic word "resort" within the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with Complainant's mark, as it is descriptive of the business in which Complainant engages. Furthermore, the gTLD extension <.net> within the disputed domain name may be ignored for the purposes of comparing the mark and the disputed domain name, because it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is identical to the STARDUST mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. Specifically, Complainant holds a United States registered trademark and service mark for the STARDUST mark registration number 1,580,234 registered on January 30, 1990, for goods in international classes 28, 39, 41 and 42, which include specifically "recreational vehicle and motorhome parking services." Respondent could not therefore lawfully use Complainant's mark for these services. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith In his informal response, Respondent does not give any reasons why he registered the disputed domain name. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves shows that Respondent appears to be in a small way of business operating a holiday resort for tourists with recreational vehicles ("RV"). Because he is engaged in the resort business, on the balance of probabilities, he was aware that the STARDUST mark is being used by Complainant in its casino and hotel resort business. Additionally, Complainant has registered trademark rights in the STARDUST mark for goods including "recreational vehicle and motorhome parking services". When the disputed domain name was chosen and registered, the registrant therefore knew, or should have known that the disputed domain name could not be lawfully used as the address of a website promoting "recreational vehicle and motorhome parking services". In such circumstances this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves offers parking services for recreational vehicles, and Internet users are offered the option of bringing their own vehicle or using one of the parked vehicles provided by Respondent. It is essentially a resort trailer-park in a parkland setting. On the evidence, Respondent does not pose a serious competitive threat to Complainant. He may well have felt that being at a distance in Texas, and in a small way of business, he was in a different market. However Complainant holds national trademark rights in the STARDUST mark. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name being a combination of Complainant's mark and the word "resort", within the address of his website which offers recreational vehicle and motorhome parking services in Respondent's resort, would on the balance of probabilities to attract and confuse Internet users and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant and misdirect it to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web site, which constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 <stardustresort.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. _______________________________________ James Bridgeman SC, Panelist Dated: August 29, 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.