Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. 有限公司
Claim Number: FA2008001909558
Complainant is Las Vegas Sands Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Michael J. McCue, Nevada, USA. Respondent is 有限公司 (“Respondent”), Taiwan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <paizacasino-blog.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 21, 2020; the Forum received payment on August 21, 2020.
On August 25, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <paizacasino-blog.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 August 31, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 21, 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@paizacasino-blog.com. Also on August 31, 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 September 25, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <paizacasino-blog.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PAIZA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <paizacasino-blog.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <paizacasino-blog.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant owns and operates multiple casinos throughout the United States, Macao, and Singapore. Complainant holds registration for the PAIZA mark with numerous trademark agencies throughout the world (e.g. United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Reg. 3,334,603 and China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) Reg. 5,473,039).
Respondent registered the <paizacasino-blog.com> domain name on November 11, 2019, and uses it to compete with Complainant.
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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights the PAIZA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registrations with the numerous trademark agencies throughout the world. See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world.”).
Respondnet’s <paizacasino-blog.com> domain name incorporates the PAIZA mark and adds the descriptive words “casino” and “blog,” a hyphen, and the “.com” gTLD. Adding words that relate to a Complainant’s business, along with a hyphen and a gTLD are insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark it incorporates. See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <paizacasino-blog.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PAIZA mark
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show 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 argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <paizacasino-blog.com> domain name, as it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its PAIZA mark. The WHOIS of record identifies Respondent as “有限公司”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent does not use the <paizacasino-blog.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead diverts Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent’s competing website. Attempting to divert Internet users to the disputed domain name, where Respondent hosts competing content is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving website, which features images and advertisements of casino games and payment information. The Panel finds Respondent that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <paizacasino-blog.com> domain in bad faith as it had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PAIZA mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Actual knowledge is sufficient to establish bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), and may be demonstrated through Respondent registering a domain name that incorporates a well-known and registered trademark, as well as Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host content that competes with Complainant’s business. See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). Complainant provides a list of its various casino properties and Google search results for the terms “paiza casino,” showing that it is well known. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PAIZA mark, in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel also finds that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to compete with Complainant, which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See CAN Financial Corporation v. William Thomson / CNA Insurance, FA1401001541484 (Forum Feb. 28, 2014) (finding that the respondent had engaged in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), by using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its own website where it sold competing insurance services).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <paizacasino-blog.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 26, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page