Hard Rock Cafe International v. John Sekely
Claim Number: FA1201001425071
Complainant is Hard Rock Cafe International (“Complainant”), represented by P. Jay Hines of Cantor Colburn LLP, Virginia, USA. Respondent is John Sekely (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain names at issue are <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 17, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 17, 2012.
On January 18, 2012, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.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 20, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 9, 2012 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@hardrockcafes.asia, postmaster@hardrockcasinos.asia, and postmaster@hardrockhotels.asia. Also on January 20, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 14, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <hardrockcafes.asia> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HARD ROCK CAFE mark.
Respondent’s <hardrockcasinos.asia> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HARD ROCK CASINO mark.
Respondent’s <hardrockhotels.asia> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HARD ROCK HOTEL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Hard Rock Cafe International, is the owner of the HARD ROCK CAFE, HARD ROCK CASINO, and HARD ROCK HOTEL marks. Complainant has registered the HARD ROCK CAFE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,397,180 registered June 10. 1986). Complainant also has multiple USPTO trademark registrations for the HARD ROCK CASINO mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,499,114 registered October 16, 2001) and the HARD ROCK HOTEL mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,909,483 registered August 1, 1992). Complainant uses its marks in connection with the operation of music-themed restaurants, hotels, casinos, and events, as well as related merchandising.
Respondent, John Sekely, registered the <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names on April 3, 2010. The disputed domain names previously resolved to inactive websites. The disputed domain names currently resolve to websites which display links to competing goods and 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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Complainant contends that it has rights in the HARD ROCK CAFE mark. Complainant has provided evidence of its trademark registration of the HARD ROCK CAFE mark with the USPTO(e.g., Reg. No. 1,397,180 registered June 10, 1986). Complainant argues that it also has rights in the HARD ROCK CASINO mark. Complainant has attached evidence of its registrations for the HARD ROCK CASINO mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,499,114 registered October 16, 2001). Complainant asserts that it has rights in the HARD ROCK HOTEL mark. Evidence of Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HARD ROCK HOTEL mark have been provided to the Panel (e.g., Reg. No. 1,909,483 registered August 1, 1992). Panels have previously held that the registration of a mark with a federal trademark authority like the USPTO is a sufficient basis upon which to assert rights in a mark. See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the HARD ROCK CAFE, HARD ROCK CASINO, and HARD ROCK HOTEL marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the <hardrockcafes.asia> domain name is confusingly similar to the HARD ROCK CAFE mark. The Panel holds that Respondent’s removal of the spaces between the words in Complainant’s HARD ROCK CAFE mark fails to differentiate the disputed domain name from the HARD ROCK CAFE mark. See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Elimination of punctuation and the space between the words of Complainant’s mark, as well as the addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel finds that Respondent’s addition of the letter “s” to Complainant’s HARD ROCK CAFE mark does not make the disputed domain name distinct from the mark. See Barnesandnoble.com LLC v. Your One Stop Web Shop, FA 670171 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2006) (finding that the additions of the letter “s” and generic top-level domains to the disputed <barnesandnobles.info> and <barnesandnobles.biz> domain names failed to avoid the confusing similarity between the domain names and the complainant’s BARNESANDNOBLE.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also T.R. World Gym-IP, LLC v. D’Addio, FA 956501 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2007) (finding that the addition of the letter “s” to a registered trademark in a contested domain name is not enough to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Additionally, the Panel finds that Respondent’s addition of the sponsored top-level domain (“sTLD”) “.asia” fails to negate a finding of confusing similarity. See Acton Educ.Servs., Inc. v. Smith, FA 1238865 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 26, 2009) (finding that the addition of the top-level domain “.asia” to be irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Dallas Project Holdings Ltd. v. Putra, FA 1368692 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 9, 2011) (stating that “the addition of the sTLD “.asia” does not remove the disputed domain name from the realm of confusing similarity”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <hardrockcafes.asia> domain name is confusingly similar to the HARD ROCK CAFE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the <hardrockcasinos.asia> domain name is confusingly similar to the HARD ROCK CASINO mark. Respondent makes the following changes to the mark in the disputed domain name: the elimination of spaces between words, the addition of the letter “s” to the mark, and the addition of the sTLD “.asia.” The Panel finds that the removal of spaces makes no difference in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., supra; see also U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, supra. The Panel also finds that the addition of a single letter fails to distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark at issue. See Barnesandnoble.com LLC v. Your One Stop Web Shop, supra; see also T.R. World Gym-IP, LLC v. D’Addio, supra. Finally, the Panel finds that the addition of an sTLD is irrelevant for a determination of confusing similarity. See Acton Educ.Servs., Inc. v. Smith, supra; see also Dallas Project Holdings Ltd. v. Putra, supra. Therefore, the Panel finds that the <hardrockcasinos.asia> domain name is confusingly similar to the HARD ROCK CASINO mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant asserts that the <hardrockhotels.asia> domain name is confusingly similar to the HARD ROCK HOTEL mark. The Panel is not persuaded that the mark is materially changed within the disputed domain name because of the elimination of the spaces between words. See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., supra; see also U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, supra. Additionally, the Panel finds no merit in the attempt to distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark by adding a single letter. See Barnesandnoble.com LLC v. Your One Stop Web Shop, supra; see also T.R. World Gym-IP, LLC v. D’Addio, supra. The Panel finds also that the addition of the sTLD “.asia” is irrelevant for the determination of confusing similarity. See Acton Educ.Servs., Inc. v. Smith, supra; see also Dallas Project Holdings Ltd. v. Putra, supra. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <hardrockhotels.asia> domain name is confusingly similar to the HARD ROCK HOTEL mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is met.
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) requires that Complainant present a prima facie against Respondent before the burden to prove rights and legitimate interests shifts to Respondent. The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case in support of this finding and thus that the burden shifts now to Respondent to dispute these claims. See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault, FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)). The Panel, however, is without the benefit of a Response from Respondent. Therefore, the Panel will make all inferences which are reasonable from the information available. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertions in this regard.”); see also Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). The Panel will still review the record under the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors, however, for information suggesting that Respondent does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant argues that Respondent is not related to, affiliated with, or licensed by Complainant and thus has no authority under which to use any of Complainant’s marks. The WHOIS record for each of the disputed domain names lists “John Sekely” as the domain name registrant. The Panel finds that the evidence available on the record indicates that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Xerox Corp. v. Anti-Globalization Domains, FA 210224 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“[I]t would be difficult for Respondent to demonstrate that it had rights or legitimate interests in the domain name given Complainant's long and substantial use of its unique and famous XEROX mark.”); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s prior non-use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Prior to the current use of the <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names, the disputed domain names resolved to inactive websites. While Complainant does not provide screenshot evidence of this previous use, Complainant provides the Panel with correspondence between Complainant and Respondent where Respondent admits that the disputed domain names were previously inactive. Panels have found in past cases that the holding of an inactive website demonstrates that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Apr. 12, 2007) (finding that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in a confusingly similar domain name that it had not made demonstrable preparations to use since its registration seven months prior to the complaint); see also George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s previous non-use of the <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names was neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s current use of the <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names is also not a use which gives Respondent rights in the disputed domain names. The <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names currently resolve to websites which display links to goods and services similar to, and in competition with, those that Complainant provides in the music, restaurant, hotel, casino, and event industries. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s current use of the disputed domain name is neither a Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services nor a 4(c)(iii)legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites, it was not using a domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Expedia, Inc. v. Compaid, FA 520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <expediate.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to travel services that competed with the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Complainant next contends that Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain names is evidence of its lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Following the acceptance of a deal to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant for $75 per domain name, Respondent refused to honor the deal and instead insisted upon more money. The panels in Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. Hyun-Jun Shin, FA 154098 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000), held that the offer to sell a disputed domain name demonstrated the respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in that domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is demonstrated by Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is met.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith. Following Respondent’s acceptance of an offer by Complainant to buy the disputed domain names for $75 each, Respondent reneged on the deal and demanded more money for each domain name because it asserted that Complainant’s company is lucrative enough to pay more. Panels have previously held that a respondent’s willingness to sell a disputed domain name is evidence of the fact that a respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding that the attempted sale of a domain name is evidence of bad faith); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent offered domain names for sale). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) is evidenced by Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s registration and current use of the <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names was meant to disrupt Complainant’s business. The disputed domain names currently resolve to a website which displays links with headings such as “The Palms Las Vegas” and “Turn-Key Events” offering goods and services which compete with those Complainant provides. The panels in Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007), and Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007), held that the registration and use of a domain name to display competitive links is disruptive to Complainant’s business and indicates bad faith. The Panel therefore holds that Respondent’s registration and current use of the <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names was in bad faith Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) due to its disruptive character .
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is currently using the disputed domain names in order to take advantage of Internet users’ mistakes as to the source or sponsorship of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, varying by little more than misspellings, which makes it rather certain that some of the Internet users seeking Complainant will instead arrive at Respondent’s <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names. Once there, the Internet users will be faced with links that compete with the goods and services that Complainant offers in the music, hotel, restaurant, casino, and event industries. Given that it is unlikely that Complainant would promote its competitors, the Internet users will likely become confused as to whether Complainant is the genuine sponsor of the disputed domain names. Respondent, the Panel infers, likely profits from the Internet users who remain convinced that Complainant is the source of the domain names and click through the links as a result. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and current use of the disputed domain name was in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) as it attempted to confuse Internet users about the source of the disputed domain names and then take commercial advantage of the mistakes made due to this confusion . See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes); see also Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Complainant claims that the disputed domain names were previously inactive. Previous panels have held that the non-use of a disputed domain name demonstrates bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (“[I]t is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.”); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and prior non-use of the <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant also contends that given its average brand awareness of 81%, its extensive advertising, celebrity associations, and its presence around the world, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names without actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. The Panel here finds that any arguments of bad faith based on constructive notice are irrelevant, however, because UDRP case precedent declines to find bad faith as a result of constructive knowledge. See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."). The Panel does agree with Complainant, however, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name and finds that actual knowledge is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is met.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hardrockcafes.asia>, <hardrockcasinos.asia>, and <hardrockhotels.asia> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: February 15, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page