Wynn06.com + 14 more domains

The timeline behind wynn06.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 Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC v. SanMin Li / TRI HUNG LUU / LUU TRI HUNG Claim Number: FA2602002204121 PARTIES Complainant is Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Peter H. Ajemian of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Nevada, USA. Respondent is SanMin Li / TRI HUNG LUU / LUU TRI HUNG ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <wynn06.com>, <wynn07.com>, <wynn09.com>, <wynn10.com>, <wynn11.com>, <wynn13.com>, <wynn15.com>, <wynn20.com>, <wynn22.com>, <wynn29.com>, <wynn30.com>, <wynn31.com>, <wynn32.com>, <wynn36.com>, and <wynn40.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Adam Taylor as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 6, 2026; Forum received payment on February 6, 2026. On February 9, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wynn06.com>, <wynn07.com>, <wynn09.com>, <wynn10.com>, <wynn11.com>, <wynn13.com>, <wynn15.com>, <wynn20.com>, <wynn22.com>, <wynn29.com>, <wynn30.com>, <wynn31.com>, <wynn32.com>, <wynn36.com>, and <wynn40.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 4, 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@wynn06.com, postmaster@wynn07.com, postmaster@wynn09.com, postmaster@wynn10.com, postmaster@wynn11.com, postmaster@wynn13.com, postmaster@wynn15.com, postmaster@wynn20.com, postmaster@wynn22.com, postmaster@wynn29.com, postmaster@wynn30.com, postmaster@wynn31.com, postmaster@wynn32.com, postmaster@wynn36.com, and postmaster@wynn40.com. Also on February 12, 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 March 5, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names are subject to common control, this not having been denied by Respondents, and that, in the circumstances, consolidation is fair and equitable to all parties, and also procedurally efficient. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.11. In particular, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names: - are in the same format, namely "wynn" plus a two-digit number; - have been used to resolve to virtually identical websites; and - were registered to three individuals on four dates. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants in a single proceeding. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has rights in the WYNN mark based upon registration of its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and upon common law rights arising from long-standing continuous business use. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; on the contrary, Respondent is using the disputed domain names to misleadingly divert Complainant's customers. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use Complainant's mark. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is evidenced by Complainant's fame and Respondent's use of Complainant's marks. Respondent has used the disputed domain names to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark for commercial gain. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is part of the Wynn group that operates luxury casino resorts in Las Vegas and elsewhere. The group has traded under the mark WYNN since at least 2005. Complainant owns various registered trademarks for WYNN, including Reg. No. 2,998,762, registered with the USPTO on September 20, 2005. The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates: - March 5, 2021: <wynn06.com>, <wynn07.com>, <wynn09.com>, <wynn11.com> - June 21, 2021: <wynn10.com>, <wynn20.com>, <wynn30.com>, <wynn40.com> - June 14, 2022: <wynn13.com>, <wynn15.com>, <wynn29.com>, <wynn31.com>, <wynn32.com>, <wynn36.com> - June 16, 2024: <wynn22.com> All of the disputed domain names have been used to resolved to virtually identical gambling websites branded with Complainant's logo. 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 Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the WYNN mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's distinctive WYNN mark and merely add two-digits numbers to each. It is well established under the Policy that the incorporation of a complainant's mark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity, even when combined with additional terms. 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.") Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's WYNN 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 names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii); then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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 argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use. As discussed under the third element below, the Panel considers that Respondent has used the disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking Complainant's goods and/or services by impersonating Complainant. Such activity is plainly not bona fide. Nor does it qualify as legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under 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). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrants as "SanMin Li / TRI HUNG LUU" / LUU TRI HUNG" and there is no other information on the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel considers that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's WYNN trademark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). First, Respondent was plainly aware of Complainant given that Complainant has established a substantial reputation in its WYNN mark. Second, the disputed domain names reflect Complainant's distinctive mark. Third, Respondent has used the disputed domain names for websites that impersonate Complainant, including by prominent use of Complainant's logo and by offering services identical or similar to those of Complainant. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered, and is using, the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <wynn06.com>, <wynn07.com>, <wynn09.com>, <wynn10.com>, <wynn11.com>, <wynn13.com>, <wynn15.com>, <wynn20.com>, <wynn22.com>, <wynn29.com>, <wynn30.com>, <wynn31.com>, <wynn32.com>, <wynn36.com>, <wynn40.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. __________________________________________________________________ Adam Taylor, Panelist Dated: March 6, 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.