Bluechipcasino-ca.com

The timeline behind bluechipcasino-ca.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Boyd Gaming Corporation v. YURY ZANCHENKO Claim Number: FA2601002200153 PARTIES Complainant is Boyd Gaming Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Daniel H. Bliss of HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC, Michigan, USA. Respondent is YURY ZANCHENKO ("Respondent"), Ukraine. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bluechipcasino-ca.com>, registered with Name.com, 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. Steven M. Levy as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 16, 2026; Forum received payment on January 16, 2026. On January 20, 2026, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bluechipcasino-ca.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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@bluechipcasino-ca.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 Steven M. Levy 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 submits that they are 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. It is the owner of United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Registration No. 2159517 dated May 19, 1998; Registration No. 2201815 dated November 3, 1998; and Registration No. 3475375 dated July 29, 2008. The <bluechipcasino-ca.com> domain name, registered on December 12, 2025, is confusingly similar to the BLUE CHIP mark as it incorporates the entirety of the mark adding only the generic word "casino", a hyphen, the letters "CA", and the ".com" TLD. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and it hosts a website that offers competing casino services. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of the Complainant's mark and based on the above-mentioned website activity. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS - Complainant owns trademark rights in the BLUE CHIP mark and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark; - Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is used to pass itself off as and compete with Complainant and there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name; and - The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where its resolving website passes itself off as 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 Complainant asserts rights in its BLUE CHIP mark through its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the 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).") Here, Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registration certificates. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BLUE CHIP mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BLUE CHIP mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a hyphen and generic or geographic terms, along with a TLD, is typically insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the asserted mark. See SOLVAY Société Anonyme v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Gary Reid, D2022-2586 (WIPO Sep. 5, 2022) (confusing similarity found where "the Complainant's registered trademark SOLVAY is fully included in the disputed domain name, followed by a hyphen and the geographic term 'lebanon'.") See also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.") The disputed domain names adds a hyphen, the generic word "casino", and the geographic term "CA" (indicating Canada) to Complainant's mark as well as the ".com" TLD. These minimal changes do not reduce confusion and the mark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have 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)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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"). Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the BLUE CHIP mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed 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 record for the disputed domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identify Respondent as "Yury Zanchenko" and Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to claim that it is known otherwise. Further, the fact that Complainant's mark appears on Respondent's website does not, itself, indicate that Respondent is commonly known thereby where such use appears intended to create consumer confusion. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.") Furthermore, Complainant specifically notes that "Respondent is not a licensee, authorized retailer, or distributor of Complainant's services or otherwise authorized to use the name or the Complainant Marks for any purpose" and Respondent has not made any claim to the contrary. Therefore, the Panel finds insufficient evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, addressing Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), the Complaint asserts that Respondent does not use its domain name in the bona fide offering of goods or services as the services offered on its website are directly competitive to those provided by Complainant. Rather, it claims that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert and deceive customers. Passing oneself off as a complainant and diverting users to a respondent's webpage, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug.21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).") Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the website that resolves from the <bluechipcasino-ca.com> domain name. The top of the page prominently displays a form of the BLUE CHIP mark or its associated logo at the top as well as links such as "Bonus", "Promo Code", and "No Deposit Bonus". Buttons titled "Sign In" and "Register" also appear. Below these, appear a marquis image overlayed with the text "Create an account, deposit C$20, and get a 100% match up to C$500 + 100 spins at Blue Chip Casino Canada". The site features links to various online games and makes a number of additional uses of the mark (e.g., "We can make rewards that fit the way you play when you sign up for a VIP trial at Blue Chip Casino right now.") There is no indication on the site that it is not associated with Complainant. From this evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent is seeking to pass itself off as Complainant and is thus not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and that it is also not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). As noted above, this shifts the burden of proof to Respondent but it has not participated in these proceedings and so has not rebutted Complainant's case. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that "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". It adds that Respondent had "at least constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the Complainant Marks at the time the Domain was created and acquired". The concept of constructive notice of trademark rights has generally been rejected in the context of the Policy as actual knowledge is required to demonstrate bad faith targeting of an asserted mark. See, e.g., Wasteland Inc. v. Monica Dimperio / The MidWasteland, FA 2134687 (Forum Feb. 13, 2025) ("Even though a registered trademark constitutes constructive notice under U.S. trademark law, that concept has generally not been incorporated into the UDRP as a basis to find bad faith registration. * * * That is because a finding of bad faith under the Policy requires some element of knowledge, even if knowledge is inferred by the facts or established through willful blindness.") However, actual knowledge of a complainant's trademark rights may form a solid foundation upon which to establish bad faith and may be inferred when a respondent uses an identical disputed domain name to pass itself off as a complainant. See Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) ("[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.") Complainant asserts that its mark is "world-famous" and that it "has spent substantial money, time, and effort to advertise and promote its BLUE CHIP® trademarks and associated goods and services in a variety of media over many decades."1 However, more revealing is the fact that Respondent's website prominently includes multiple uses of Complainant's mark including a prominent logo at the top of its page. From this, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BLUE CHIP mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name. Next, the Complaint asserts that Respondent is offering services in competition with Complainant and is seeking commercial gain based on confusion with the BLUE CHIP mark. This sets out claims for bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Zapier, Inc. v. Manohar Chapalamadugu / Agile CRM Inc., FA 2049262 (Forum July 23, 2023) (where the disputed "domain name resolves to a website that purports to do exactly what Complainant does", the Panel found that Respondent is "using the disputed domain name to offer competing services under the same mark, and thus, attracting unsuspecting Zapier customers to its infringing website, and disrupting and damaging Zapier's business.") Here, Complainant states that it offers casino services and asserts that "Respondent is using the Domain to direct Complainant's customers to a page impersonating the Complainant and is containing competing services with the Complainant Marks of the Complainant." Issues of poor sentence structure aside, based on the screenshots submitted into evidence, the Panel agrees that Respondent uses the BLUE CHIP mark to offer gaming and gambling services that compete with Complainant's own gaming services under the mark. Thus, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Panel finds that the domain name was registered and is used in bad faith to target and compete with Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). 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 <bluechipcasino-ca.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Steven M. Levy, Panelist Dated: February 13, 2026 [1] The Panel notes that, while Complainant submits evidence of its trademark rights in the form of registration certificates, these only speak to the existence of rights in a mark and do not support its broad claims of brand recognition and the scope of its trademark's reputation. Rather, reputational evidence often consists of examples of such things as advertising, website and social media pages (including consumer comments), news articles, sponsorships, trade show participation, awards and recognition, consumer surveys, and the like. Had Respondent here not defaulted and its activities here not shown passing off activity, Complainant's case may have faced more significant challenges. 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.