Bluechipcasinoguide.com

The timeline behind bluechipcasinoguide.com

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.

DECISION Boyd Gaming Corporation v. Lina Lynkovich Claim Number: FA2601002200115 PARTIES Complainant is Boyd Gaming Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Daniel H. Bliss of HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Lina Lynkovich ("Respondent"), Great Britain. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bluechipcasinoguide.com>, registered with Spaceship, 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 16, 2026; Forum received payment on January 16, 2026. On January 18, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bluechipcasinoguide.com> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 10, 2026 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@bluechipcasinoguide.com. Also on January 21, 2026, 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends in part as follows: The Complaint is based on U.S. Trademark Registration for the BLUE CHIP® mark. The Complaint is further based on common law rights in the mark BLUE CHIP™ and BLUE CHIP CASINO™ for casino services with a date of first use of July 23, 1993. Respondent's Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to the BLUE CHIP® marks in Which Complainant Has Rights. Complainant is a leading casino entertainment company, currently owning and operating twenty-eight resort hotel casino and gaming properties throughout the United States. Complainant owns all rights and interests to the world-famous BLUE CHIP® trademark, first used in connection with the Blue Chip Casino in 1993. 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 UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent owns the domain <bluechipcasinoguide.com>, and has been using this domain since November 17, 2025. Respondent has competing casino services of Complainant. Complainant is the owner of various United States trademarks with respect to its services, including the federally registered trademark BLUE CHIP® and BLUE CHIP CASINO HOTEL®. Respondent is using the Complainant's marks or a confusingly similar mark for its domain name, business name, and in connection with the sale and/or offering for sale of casino services using the domain name that causes a likelihood of confusion. Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant marks because the domain name includes "BLUE CHIP" in its entirety and the wording "casino" and "guide", before the generic top-level domain (gTLD) ".net". These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. Respondent should be Considered as having No Rights or Legitimate Interests in Respect of the At-issue Domain Name that is the Subject of the Complaint. Complainant owns all rights and interests to the world-famous BLUE CHIP® trademark, first used in connection with the Blue Chip Casino in 1993. Complainant's BLUE CHIP® trademark was in use well before Respondent created and acquired the domain name therefore Respondent had at least constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in Complainant marks at the time the domain name was created and acquired. Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer, or distributor of Complainant's services or otherwise authorized to use the domain name or the Complainant marks for any purpose. The at-issue domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, promoting competing services of Complainant's services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. Use of the at-issue domain name by Respondent to attract internet traffic to a website offering Respondent's casino services is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that is the subject of the Complaint. The At-issue Domain Has Been Registered and Is Being Used in Bad Faith. Respondent owns the domain <bluechipcasinoguide.com>, and has been using this domain since November 17, 2025. 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 is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its BLUE CHIP® trademarks. Respondent therefore does not have a legitimate interest in the at-issue domain name as contemplated by UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent knew or should have known that it registered the domain name in bad faith to capitalize on consumer recognition of the Complainant marks and is using the website to which the domain name resolves to offer competing services of the Complainant. Respondent had knowledge of Complainant and is using the website to which the Domain resolves to offer competing services of the Complainant in an attempt to mislead the Complainant's customers. Respondent is using the domain name to direct Complainant's customers to a page impersonating the Complainant and is containing competing services with the Complainant marks of the Complainant. Respondent is using the domain name to confuse Internet traffic seeking the Complainant. Respondent is using the Complainant's marks or a confusingly similar mark, not its own. Respondent has no rights in the domain name, and the Respondent improperly registered the domain name in bad faith and did violate Policy ¶ 4(b). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the BLUE CHIP mark and related marks. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Complainant had rights in its mark before Respondent registered the at-issue domain name. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that pretends to be affiliated with Complainant offering services that compete with 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 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 The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's USPTO registration for its BLUE CHIP trademark is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also, Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")."). Respondent's <bluechipcasinoguide.com> domain name contains Complainant's BLUE CHIP trademark less its domain name impermissible space, followed by the terms "casino" and "guide" with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish <bluechipcasinoguide.com> from Complainant's BLUE CHIP mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <bluechipcasinoguide.com>domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BLUE CHIP trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also, Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name ultimately reveals the domain name's registrant as "Lina Lynkovich" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <bluechipcasinoguide.com>. The Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). Respondent uses the confusingly similar <bluechipcasinoguide.com> domain name to address websites appearing to look as if it might be affiliated with Complainant and offering goods and/or services that compete with Complainant's offering. Notably, Respondent's <bluechipcasinoguide.com> commercial website prominently display Complainant's BLUE CHIP mark in boldly stating WELCOME TO BLUE CHIP CASINO GUIDE. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name to pass off as Complainant and compete with Complainant indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant"). Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <bluechipcasinoguide.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. As mentioned above, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address website looking as if it is affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's use of <bluechipcasinoguide.com> to pass itself off as Complainant and compete with Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended by Respondent to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its at-issue domain name and associated websites, and Complainant's BLUE CHIP trademark. Respondent's use of <bluechipcasinoguide.com> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA 1841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant"); see also, DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) ("Respondent is appropriating Complainant's mark to divert Complainant's customers to Respondent's competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the BLUE CHIP mark when it registered <bluechipcasinoguide.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given Complainant's well-known BLUE CHIP mark and given Respondent's use of its <bluechipcasinoguide.com> domain name to address a website that poses as if it is affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in BLUE CHIP further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <bluechipcasinoguide.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: February 11, 2026 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.