Tropicana Entertainment Holdings, LLC v. Transure Enterprise Ltd. c/o Host Master
Claim Number: FA0902001246025
Complainant is Tropicana Entertainment Holdings, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by John
M. Mueller, of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <tropicanaentertainment.com>, registered with Above, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 3, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 4, 2009.
On February 9, Above, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <tropicanaentertainment.com> domain name is registered with Above, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Above, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On February
9, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
March 2, 2009
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@tropicanaentertainment.com
by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 5, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <tropicanaentertainment.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TROPICANA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <tropicanaentertainment.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <tropicanaentertainment.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Tropicana Entertainment Holdings, LLC, operates in the casino, hotel, restaurant, and travel industries. Complainant has also registered its TROPICANA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (i.e. Reg. No. 1,530,186 issued March 14, 1989).
Respondent registered the disputed <tropicanaentertainment.com> domain name on February 12, 2008. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that provides links and advertisements for third parties, including the direct competitors of 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."
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 submitted evidence of its trademark registrations with the USPTO for its TROPICANA mark. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has sufficient rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO).
Respondent’s <tropicanaentertainment.com>
domain name includes Complainant’s mark, while adding the descriptive word
“entertainment” and the generic top-level domain “.com.” Neither of these alterations carries any
meaningful distinction. See Vance
Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 8, 2007) (finding that by adding the term “security” to the complainant’s
VANCE mark, which described the complainant’s business, the respondent “very
significantly increased” the likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s
mark); 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). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has asserted that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant must successfully assert a sufficient prima facie case supporting its allegations before Respondent receives the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests. The Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden, and therefore Respondent must demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. 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 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).
There is no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, Complainant contends that Respondent is not authorized to register or use the disputed domain name or the TROPICANA mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that features third-party advertisements for Complainant’s competitors. The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees from this activity. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to create a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith
registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by
disrupting Complainant’s business through the provision of competitive third-party
advertisements on the resolving website.
See EBAY, Inc. v.
MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO
The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith
registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by
intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain as to
Complainant’s affiliation with Respondent’s confusingly similar disputed domain
name and corresponding website. See
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); see also
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) 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 <tropicanaentertainment.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 19, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum