Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC v yang shuqing
WIPO Case No. D2024-2714
•11-09-2024
| ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC v. yang shuqing
Case No. D2024-2714
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by
Mayer Brown LLP, China.
The Respondent is yang shuqing, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <wynnmacauweb.live> (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 3, 2024.
On July 3, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in
connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 3, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name
which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 4, 2024, providing the registrant and
contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the
Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on July 9, 2024.
The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 16, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 5, 2024. The Respondent did not f ile a formal response but sent email communications to the Center on July 11, 17, and 18, 2024. Accordingly, the Center commenced the Panel Appointment process on August 14, 2024, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Rules.
page 2
The Center appointed Kar Liang Soh as the sole panelist in this matter on August 23, 2024. The Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a Nevada-based limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wynn Resorts, Limited (“Wynn Resorts”). Together with its af f iliates, including Wynn Resorts and its other subsidiaries (collectively referred to as the “Complainant Group”), the Complainant Group designs, develops, and operates resorts integrating luxury hotel rooms, high-end retail, dining and entertainment options, meeting spaces, and gaming. Wynn Resorts has been listed on the Nasdaq Stock Exchange since 2002 and included as part of the NASDAQ-100 Index since 2004.
The Complainant Group’s primarily operates in the United States and China, including Macao, China.
The Complainant Group has been active in the China market for over a decade, operating integrated resort
projects in Macao, China, including “Wynn Macau” (opened in September 2006), “Encore Tower at Wynn
Macau” (opened in April 2010), and “Wynn Palace” (opened in August 2016).
The Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations around the world incorporating the word “WYNN” in various forms (the “WYNN Trademark”), including:
| Jurisdiction | Registration No. | Registration Date |
| China | 5304535 | July 28, 2009 |
| China | 5516996 | September 14, 2009 |
The Complainant also holds trademark registrations for the words “WYNN MACAU” (the “WYNN MACAU
Trademark”), including:
| Jurisdiction | Registration No. | Registration Date |
| United States | 3382681 | February 12, 2008 |
| Hong Kong | 300134126 | May 10, 2004 |
| Singapore | T0320729H | August 11, 2004 |
The Complainant Group also of fers products under the WYNN Trademarks on its website, such as bath robes, towels, and pillowcases.
The Complainant also registers and maintains various domain names incorporating the WYNN Trademarks, including <wynnmacau.com> which was registered on July 11, 2002. The <wynnmacau.com> domain name currently redirects to the website of the Complainant Group’s “Wynn Macau” resort.
The Respondent appears to be an individual based in China. Beyond the WhoIs information of the Disputed Domain Name and Registrar verif ication, very little information about the Respondent is available. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 18, 2024. On or around June 19, 2024, the Disputed
Domain Name resolved to an e-commerce website listing clothing from other brands, along with their prices. A Facebook page which emulated the Complainant Group’s own Facebook page also listed the URL of the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name. The emulative Facebook page incorporated the WYNN Trademark, WYNN MACAU Trademark, content of the Complainant Group’s collaborative event with Omega watches, and photographs f rom the Complainant Group’s Facebook page.
page 3
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the WYNN Trademark and WYNN MACAU Trademark, as it fully incorporates them. The addition of the generic term “web” does nothing to eliminate or lessen the degree of confusing similarity of the Disputed Domain Name to the WYNN MACAU Trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain extension <.live> may be disregarded.
| b) | The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. |
The Complainant has not licensed, consented to or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the WYNN Trademark and WYNN MACAU Trademark for the Disputed Domain Name or for any reason whatsoever, nor is the Respondent an authorized representative or partner of the Complainant. There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, WYNN Trademark or WYNN MACAU Trademark. The Respondent’s true motive behind registering the Disputed Domain Name derives from a desire to obtain commercial benef its by using the Complainant’s WYNN Trademark and WYNN MACAU Trademark to drive traffic to the website for commercial gain. The Respondent cannot claim to be making noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name has also been listed as the website link on a Facebook business page copying the Complainant Group.
| c) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent’s purchase items on the Respondent’s website. The Respondent is unfairly and intentionally taking advantage of , and exploiting without authorization, the reputation and distinctiveness of the WYNN Trademark and WYNN MACAU Trademark to attract users who are the Complainant’s customers or potential customers for commercial gain to the Disputed Domain Name. registration was motivated solely to take advantage of the Complainant Group’s reputation in the WYNN | ||||||
| B. Respondent | ||||||
| The Respondent did not file a formal Response. The Respondent wrote to the Center on July 18, 2024, claiming that the Respondent was not personally using the Disputed Domain Name and suggesting the existence of an actual holder who may be contacted on the matter. [1] | ||||||
| 6. Discussion and Findings | ||||||
| The Complainant must establish all three limbs of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy on the facts in order to succeed in this proceeding: | ||||||
|
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the WYNN Trademark by virtue of trademark
registration. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the WYNN Trademark entirely, followed by the terms
“macauweb”, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.live”.
The Panel also recognizes that the Complainant has rights in the WYNN MACAU Trademark by virtue of trademark registration. Similarly, the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the WYNN MACAU Trademark entirely, followed by the term “web” and the gTLD “.live”.
According to sections 1.7 and 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), UDRP panels have established that, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for the purposes of UDRP standing and the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity under the f irst element. The present case does not present any unusual circumstances which require the Panel to depart f rom this guideline. The Panel is of the view that the addition of the term “macauweb” to the WYNN Trademark does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the WYNN Trademark. Similarly, the Panel is of the view that the addition of the term “web” to the WYNN MACAU Trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the WYNN MACAU Trademark.
Regarding the gTLD, according to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, UDRP panels have established that the gTLD is disregarded under the f irst element of the confusing similarity test, with the principle applying irrespective of the particular gTLD. Accordingly, the “.live” gTLD in the present case will not impact
the assessment of the f irst element of confusing similarity.
As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the WYNN Trademark, as well as the WYNN MACAU Trademark. The f irst limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is thus established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has conf irmed that the Respondent is neither licensed, consented to or otherwise authorized by the Complainant to the WYNN Trademark or the WYNN MACAU Trademark for the Disputed Domain Name or for any reason, nor is the Respondent an authorized representative or partner of the Complainant. There is no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, the WYNN Trademark or the WYNN MACAU Trademark. There is also no indication that the Disputed Domain Name is being used in a noncommercial or fair manner. On the contrary, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an e-commerce website purporting to promote the sale of clothing, including clothing of other brands which clearly speaks of an intent for commercial gain. In view of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the facts present a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
Further, the reference to the Disputed Domain Name on an emulative Facebook page directly connects the Disputed Domain Name to a questionable online social resource patently designed to potentially divert Internet users to the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name. This corroborates the prima facie f inding that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
The Respondent’s lack of response to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the successfully established the second limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
page 5
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that certain circumstances, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In particular, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states:
“by using the domain, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online source, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.”
The Disputed Domain Name was registered around 15 years af ter the f irst registration of the WYNN paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Trademark and WYNN MACAU Trademark in China. The website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name
is demonstrative of the Respondent’s intention for commercial gain. The Panel is satisfied from the evidence
that the WYNN Trademark and WYNN MACAU Trademark are reputable in the integrated resort market.
Given the circumstances, including the association between the Disputed Domain Name and the emulative
Facebook page, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent was well aware of the WYNN Trademark and
WYNN MACAU Trademark, and has deliberately selected the Disputed Domain Name to attract Internet
users to the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name by creating a likelihood of confusion to the
WYNN Trademark and WYNN MACAU Trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain
The Panel f inds the Respondent’s claim that he was not using the Disputed Domain Name and that a third party was involved to be hard to believe. The Respondent is after all the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name and must have full control over its administration and usage. Paragraph 2 of the Policy states that an applicant for the registration of a domain name represents and warrants, among others, that its contact details are complete and accurate. The deliberate use of incorrect information in relation to a domain name is contrary to the Policy. Even if the Respondent were not the true registrant, then whoever that person might be must clearly be going to some length to hide his/her identity. The Respondent, in allowing incorrect information to be maintained against the Disputed Domain Name would not comply with paragraph 2 of the Policy. The circumstances smell odiously of surreptitious undertakings which point irresistibly to a situation of highly sophisticated cybersquatting, and further support the f inding of bad faith in the present case.
In light of the above, the Panel holds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has successfully established the third limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <wynnmacauweb.live> be transferred to the Complainant.
/Kar Liang Soh/
Kar Liang Soh
Sole Panelist
Date: September 11, 2024
paragraph 1 of the UDRP Rules, which defines a respondent as “the holder of a domain name registration against which a complaint is initiated”. Further, to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, section 4.4.6, “panels have also made reference to paragraph 3.7.7.3 of the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement which states that a WhoIs-listed registrant (referred to as the ‘Registered Name Holder’) accepts liability for any use of the relevant domain name unless it timely discloses the contact information of any underlying beneficial registrant.”
0
0
0