Caesars World, Inc. v. Marcel July Ra Christian Kaldenhoff c/o mar-motorcycle replacement airshields GmbH
Claim Number: FA0801001126341
Complainant is Caesars World, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jessica
E. Jacob of Alston & Bird, LLP, of
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <caesarstower.com>, <caesarstowers.com>,
<caesarspalacetower.com>, <caesarspalacetowers.com>, and <caesarspalacetowerslasvegas.com>,
registered with Cronon Ag
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically January 4, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint January 7, 2008.
On January
18, 2008, Cronon Ag Berlin, Niederlassung
Regensburg confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that
the <caesarstower.com>, <caesarstowers.com>,
<caesarspalacetower.com>, <caesarspalacetowers.com> and <caesarspalacetowerslasvegas.com> domain
names are registered with Cronon Ag Berlin,
Niederlassung Regensburg and that Respondent is the current registrant
of the names. Cronon Ag
On January 23, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 12, 2008, by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@caesarstower.com, postmaster@caesarstowers.com, postmaster@caesarspalacetower.com, postmaster@caesarspalacetowers.com and postmaster@caesarspalacetowerslasvegas.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 18, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit 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." 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. The
disputed domain names that Respondent registered, <caesarstower.com>, <caesarstowers.com>, <caesarspalacetower.com>,
<caesarspalacetowers.com> and
<caesarspalacetowerslasvegas.com>, are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAESARS or
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <caesarstower.com>, <caesarstowers.com>, <caesarspalacetower.com>, <caesarspalacetowers.com> and <caesarspalacetowerslasvegas.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <caesarstower.com>, <caesarstowers.com>, <caesarspalacetower.com>, <caesarspalacetowers.com> and <caesarspalacetowerslasvegas.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Caesars World, Inc., owns
and operates a casino hotel in
Respondent registered the disputed domain names July 20,
2007, the day following Complainant’s press release regarding plans for a one
billion dollar expansion of
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."
Given 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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 established rights in the
Complainant contends that Respondent’s disputed domain names
are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAESARS mark. Complainant contends that the disputed domain
names, <caesarstower.com>, <caesarstowers.com>,
<caesarspalacetower.com>, <caesarspalacetowers.com> and
<caesarspalacetowerslasvegas.com>, include the entirety of Complainant’s
mark, merely adding generic terms which directly relate to Complainant’s
business and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds these alterations to an
otherwise unchanged mark to be minor and insufficient to distinguish the
disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark in any meaningful way for the
purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Dec. 15, 2003) (finding that the addition of the term “assurance,” to the complainant’s
AIG mark failed to sufficiently differentiate the name from the mark under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the appended term related directly to the
complainant’s business); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell,
AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the
respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term
that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007)
(concluding that the addition of a gTLD, whether it be “.com,” “.net,” “.biz,”
or “.org,” is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). The Panel agrees.
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Where Complainant makes a prima facie case under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to
set forth concrete evidence that it does possess rights to or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Complainant established
a prima facie case in the matter at
hand. See Do The Hustle, LLC v.
Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the
complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to
come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this
information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v.
Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under
certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the
respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the
burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or
legitimate interest does exist).
Respondent failed to submit a response to the Complaint. Therefore, the Panel is entitled to presume that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); 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.”).
However, this Panel examines the record to determine if Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
The disputed domain names currently resolve to a website
that purports to allow individuals to buy and sell real estate, automobiles,
recreational vehicles, boats and yachts, livestock and other merchandise. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and it is not a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Jerry Damson, Inc. v.
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known
by any of the disputed
domain names and is not authorized to use Complainant’s CAESARS or
The Panel concludes that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent has engaged in conduct constituting bad faith registration and use by registering and using the disputed domain names for Respondent’s own commercial gain. Internet users searching for Complainant’s CAESARS mark would easily be confused by the disputed domain names, which result in additional traffic to Respondent’s websites. The Panel finds such confusion for commercial gain to be further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using the complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting from click-through fees).
Complainant also contends that Respondent’s registration of
the disputed domain names one day following a widely published press release
regarding the construction of a new tower for Complainant’s
The Panel finds that Complainant 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 <caesarstower.com>, <caesarstowers.com>, <caesarspalacetower.com>, <caesarspalacetowers.com> and <caesarspalacetowerslasvegas.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: March 3, 2008.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum