Harrah's License Company, LLC v. Stuart Billinghurst c/o Billinghursts
Claim Number: FA0802001143735
Complainant is Harrah's License Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jessica
E. Jacob, of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <wsopeurope.com>, <wsopeurope.net> and <wsopeurope.info>, registered with Tucows 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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On February 15, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 6, 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@wsopeurope.com, postmaster@wsopeurope.net and postmaster@wsopeurope.info by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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. Respondent’s <wsopeurope.com>, <wsopeurope.net> and <wsopeurope.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s WSOP mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wsopeurope.com>, <wsopeurope.net> and <wsopeurope.info> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wsopeurope.com>, <wsopeurope.net> and <wsopeurope.info> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Harrah’s License Company, LLC, is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc. Complainant owns or manages more than 40 casinos
in three countries. Since 1970,
Complainant has held the World Series of Poker, or “WSOP,” each year in
Respondent registered the <wsopeurope.com>, <wsopeurope.net> and
<wsopeurope.info> domain names on
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 has established sufficient rights in the WSOP mark through registration of the mark with the UKPO pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). SeeRoyal Bank of Scot. Group plc v. TRB, FA 622345 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 22, 2006) (“The Panel accepts Complainant’s registration of the THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND mark with the United Kingdom Patent Office as evidence of Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.").
Respondent has incorporated Complainant’s entire WSOP mark within the <wsopeurope.com>, <wsopeurope.net> and <wsopeurope.info> domain names, while merely adding the geographical indicator “Europe,” as well as top-level domains including “.com,” “.net,” and “.info.” The addition of a geographic term generally does not render a disputed domain name distinct for the purposes of a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, especially in cases such as this where the dominant feature of the domain name remains a complainant’s mark. Moreover, Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not consider the addition of top-level domains as relevant in a confusing similarity analysis. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s WSOP mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Net2phone Inc. v. Netcall SAGL, D2000-0666 (WIPO Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <net2phone-europe.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because “the combination of a geographic term with the mark does not prevent a domain name from being found confusingly similar"); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, D2000-0150 (WIPO May 2, 2000) (finding that the domain name, <walmartcanada.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s famous mark); Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <wsopeurope.com>, <wsopeurope.net> and <wsopeurope.info> domain names, which successfully constitutes a prima facie case supporting its allegations. Therefore, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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”).
Respondent’s <wsopeurope.com>, <wsopeurope.net> and
<wsopeurope.info> domain names merely resolve to websites
that directly compete with Complainant.
The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant’s WSOP mark, and their
corresponding websites purport to offer Internet poker products to those
diverted Internet users seeking Complainant.
This is not a bona fide
offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use from
Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to
Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu,
FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of
[Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s
goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”); see also Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that
the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering
of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the
respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered
services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks).
Respondent offers no evidence establishing that Respondent
is commonly known by the <wsopeurope.com>, <wsopeurope.net> and
<wsopeurope.info> domain names. In fact, the WHOIS domain name registration
information lists the registrant as “Stuart Billinghurst c/o Billinghursts,”
which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks
rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii). See Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s <wsopeurope.com>, <wsopeurope.net> and <wsopeurope.info> domain names all resolve to corresponding websites that directly compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because it is apparent from this record that Respondent’s primary objective was to disrupt Complainant’s business. See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Latingrocer.com, FA 94384 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent’s sites pass users through to the respondent’s competing business); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”).
Respondent’s disputed domain names
divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s products to websites that compete
directly with Complainant for obvious commercial benefit. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s WSOP mark
within the disputed domain names has created a likelihood of confusion
regarding the affiliation and endorsement of the disputed domain names and the
corresponding websites. Internet users
seeking Complainant’s European WSOP events could easily be diverted to
Respondent’s websites through these disputed domain names, and be unexpectedly
confronted with Complainant’s competitor.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in 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 G.D.
Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21,
2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the
confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial
website).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wsopeurope.com>, <wsopeurope.net> and <wsopeurope.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dated: March 25, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum