Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. audrey aurelia / harmoni enterprise
Claim Number: FA2002001886305
Complainant is Las Vegas Sands Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Michael J. McCue, United States. Respondent is audrey aurelia / harmoni enterprise (“Respondent”), Cambodia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <casino-venetianmacao.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 28, 2020; the Forum received payment on February 28, 2020.
On March 2, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <casino-venetianmacao.com> 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 March 10, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 30, 2020 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@casino-venetianmacao.com. Also on March 10, 2020, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 2, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Las Vegas Sands Corp., owns and operates world-renowned resort casinos in the United States, Macao, and Singapore.
Complainant has rights in the VENETIAN mark based upon the registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Respondent’s <casino-venetianmacao.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VENETIAN mark as Respondent merely adds the term “casino,” a hyphen, the geographic term “macao,” and the “.com” generic top-level domain to the mark.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <casino-venetianmacao.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s VENETIAN mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the <casino-venetianmacao.com> domain name to pass off as Complainant in order to offer competing services.
Respondent has registered and uses the <casino-venetianmacao.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name. Finally, Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant’s VENETIAN mark prior to registering the <casino-venetianmacao.com> domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in VENETIAN.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the VENETIAN mark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in VENETIAN.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and provide link to competing services.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the VENETIAN mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Further, Respondent’s <casino-venetianmacao.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s VENETIAN trademark, prefixed by the descriptive term “casino” and a hyphen, and suffixed with the geographic term “macao” and the generic top-level domain “.com”. Under the Policy the resulting differences between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s domain name do nothing to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <casino-venetianmacao.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VENETIAN trademark. See Doosan Corporation v. philippe champain, FA 1636675 (Forum Oct. 13, 2015) (finding that geographic designations or terms descriptive of a complainant’s business operations do not remove a domain name from the realm of confusing similarity); see also, Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
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 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. 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 interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name ultimately identifies the domain name’s registrant as “audrey aurelia / harmoni enterprise” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <casino-venetianmacao.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <casino-venetianmacao.com> 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).
Moreover, Respondent uses the <casino-venetianmacao.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and offer services that compete with services offered by Complainant. In particular, Complainant shows that the at-issue domain name addresses a website that advertises casino services and displays a photograph background of Complainant’s mark, logo, and one of Complainant’s hotel venues as a webpage background. The photograph is one used by Complainant on an official website. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner 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 Hard Rock Cafe Int’l (USA) v. Alina Godera, FA 1474848 (Forum Jan. 16, 2013) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <hardrockcasinochips.com> domain name to divert consumers to a website offering gaming services competing with the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.)
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As elaborated above regarding rights and interests, Respondent uses its <casino-venetianmacao.com> domain name to link to services competing with Complainant’s casino services. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar <casino-venetianmacao.com> domain name in this manner shows bad faith registration and use as it disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Such use further constitutes an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum January 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the VENETIAN mark when it registered <casino-venetianmacao.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s VENETIAN trademark and from Respondent’s use of the <casino-venetianmacao.com> domain name to link to advertisements for services that compete with services offered under Complainant’s VENETIAN trademark. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <casino-venetianmacao.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 2, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page