Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Privacy Protection
Claim Number: FA2110001968195
Complainant is Las Vegas Sands Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Michael J. McCue, Nevada, USA. Respondent is Privacy Protection (“Respondent”), Illinois, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sandcasinos.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.
The undersigned certifies that 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 October 7, 2021; the Forum received payment on October 7, 2021.
On October 8, 2021, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sandcasinos.com> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 October 11, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 1, 2021 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@sandcasinos.com. Also on October 11, 2021, 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 November 5, 2021, 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 resorts casinos in the United States, Macau, and Singapore.
Complainant maintains registration in its SANDS mark through registrations with multiple trademark authorities worldwide.
The at-issue domain name, <sandcasinos.com>, is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s SANDS mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s SANDS mark, omitting the last letter “s”, and adding in the term “casinos” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form a domain name.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <sandcasinos.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the <sandcasinos.com> domain name and used a privacy service to hide its identity. Respondent further lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <sandcasinos.com> domain name because Respondent merely offers to sell the <sandcasinos.com> domain name.
Respondent registered or is using the <sandcasinos.com> domain name in bad faith because respondent offers it for sale. Respondent’s actions cause initial interest confusion as to the <sandcasinos.com> domain name’s association with Complainant. Respondent acted with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SANDS mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in SANDS.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the SANDS mark in any capacity.
The at‑issue domain name was registered after Complainant acquired trademark rights in SANDS.
Respondent offers the at-issue domain name for sale.
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 is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of SANDS with multiple trademark authorities worldwide is sufficient to established Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world.”).
The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s SANDS trademark less its final “s,” followed by the suggestive term “casinos”. The domain name concludes with the “.com” top-level domain name. The differences between the <sandcasinos.com> domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <sandcasinos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SANDS mark. 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.”); see also Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding, “The relevant comparison then resolves to the trademark, TWITCH, with the term, ‘titch,’ which, as can be readily seen, merely removes the letter ‘w’ from the trademark. In spite of that omission the compared integers remain visually and aurally very similar and so Panel finds them to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy.”).
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 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances 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. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for <sandcasinos.com> shows that “Privacy Protection” is domain name’s registrant. Further, there is nothing in the record that indicates that Respondent is otherwise known by the <sandcasinos.com> domain name. Given the foregoing, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See CheapCaribbean.com, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1411001589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015) (“The Panel notes that the WHOIS information merely lists a privacy service as registrant. In light of Respondent’s failure to provide any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds there is no basis to find Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Respondent’s offers the at-issue domain name for sale by using the domain name itself to address a landing page announcing that <sandcasinos.com> is for sale and giving its price. Respondent’s asking price appears to be in excess of its costs regarding such domain name. Respondent’s general offer to sell the at-issue domain name fails to indicate a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) regarding the at-issue domain name. See 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017) (holding that “a general offer for sale… provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests” in a disputed domain name).
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.
Respondent’s <sandcasinos.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As discussed regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent registered and used its confusingly similar domain name to address a webpage offering <sandcasinos.com> for sale for a price apparently in excess of Respondent’s costs. Offering a domain name for sale for more than the domain name’s associated costs demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See loanDepot.com, LLC v. Expired domain caught by auction winner.***Maybe for sale on Dynadot Marketplace*** c/o Dynadot, FA 1786281 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Complainant shows that Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale for $950, no doubt above its out-of-pocket costs. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
Additionally, Respondent’s <sandcasinos.com> domain name generates confusion as to the domain name’s sponsorship and thereby indicates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Red Bull GmbH v. Gutch, D2000-0766 (WIPO Sept. 21, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s expected use of the domain name <redbull.org> would lead people to believe that the domain name was connected with the complainant, and thus is the equivalent to bad faith use); see also, Phat Fashions, LLC v. Kruger, FA 96193 (Forum Dec. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) even though the respondent has not used the domain name because “it makes no sense whatever to wait until it actually ‘uses’ the name, when inevitably, when there is such use, it will create the confusion described in the Policy”).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SANDS trademark when it registered <sandcasinos.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the widespread notoriety of Complainant’s SANDS trademark. Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar <sandcasinos.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name additionally shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of the complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus the respondent registered the domain name in bad faith). 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sandcasinos.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: November 8, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page