Caesars License Company, LLC v. Ezlease Propertys / Keith Crawford / This Domain is for sale / Dale Crawford
Claim Number: FA1409001578969
Complainant is Caesars License Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Sam Gunn of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Ezlease Propertys / Keith Crawford / This Domain is for sale / Dale Crawford (“Respondent”), Nevada, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <highrollerdates.com>, <highrollerwheelweddings.com> and <highrollerweddingslv.com>, registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc; <highrollerdate.com> and <highrollerdatelv.com> registered with Pdr Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.Com; <winfreehighrollertickets.com> registered with 1&1 Internet Ag; and <highrollerride.com> registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Eduardo Magalhães Machado, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 9, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 9, 2014.
On September 10, 2014 Godaddy.Com, Llc, Network Solutions, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <highrollerdates.com>, <highrollerwheelweddings.com> and <highrollerweddingslv.com> are registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc; 1&1 Internet Ag confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <winfreehighrollertickets.com> is registered with1&1 Internet Ag; and Network Solutions, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Fourm that the <highrollerride.com> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Llc. On September 15, 2014 Pdr Ltd. D/B/A Publicdomainregistry.Com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <highrollerdate.com>, <highrollerdatelv.com> is registered with Pdr Ltd. D/B/A Publicdomainregistry.Com. All four Registrars confirmed that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. All four Registrars verified that Respondent is bound by their relevant registration agreements to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On September 16, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 6, 2014 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@highrollerdates.com, postmaster@highrollerweddingslv.com, postmaster@highrollerdate.com, postmaster@highrollerdatelv.com, postmaster@winfreehighrollertickets.com, postmaster@highrollerwheelweddings.com, postmaster@highrollerride.com. Also on September 16, 2014, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 5, 2014.
On October 8, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Eduardo Magalhães Machado 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant argues that it uses the trademark HIGH ROLLER in connection with its planned 550 foot tall observation wheel (alleged to be the world’s tallest) upon which consumers can gaze down upon the City of Las Vegas and outward into the desert vistas that surround the Las Vegas metropolis. The Complainant owns trademark registration number 4,547,907 for the trademark “HIGH HOLLER” before the USPTO with a priority date of January 31, 2011. All of the Disputed Domain Names were registered after this date.
The Respondent is not known, nor has never been known by these disputed domain names. The registrant and suspected owner of all disputed domain names is “Ezlease Propertys,” which bears no similarity to the disputed domain names—the other identities used merely reflect interest holders and associates of Ezlease Propertys and cannot be considered as independent actors since there is information, such as addresses, e-mails and phone numbers, in common between the Respondents.
The disputed domain names are used by Respondent to promote various services that compete with Complainant’s business, relate to Complainant’s business, or otherwise capitalize on the HIGH ROLLER trademark in a way that interrupts Complainant’s business unfairly, except for the domain name <highrollerride.com> , which is not active.
The Complainant affirms that Respondent is acting in bad faith and that Respondent is known for his cyber-piracy, such as the ongoing litigation in American federal court where a Las Vegas casino is seeking an injunction against Respondent’s use of allegedly infringing domain names.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has previously targeted Caesars through the registration of more than a dozen domain names that included Complainant’s well-known THE LINQ mark, using these domain names to profit through pay-per-click links and offered to sell a number of these domains to the Complainant for more than a million dollars each. A previous NAF panel found that Respondent had registered and used the domain names in bad faith and ordered that all of the domain names be transferred to the Complainant.
Complainant asserts that it has no association or affiliation with the Respondent of any kind, nor has ever given it any license or permission of any kind to use the HIGH ROLLER mark or register or use the Domain Names.
The Complainant also argues that the additional words to the domain names are not sufficient to prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to the trademark.
B. Respondent
Respondent makes it clear that he does not approve of the UDRP process. Respondent believes that cash payment for domain name registrations entitles him to keep any domain name he desires.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainants on its Additional Submission stated that the Respondent on its response identified itself as “Keith Crawford” and signed under the name Ez Lease Propertys and did not deny that is the Registrant of the disputed domain names.
Complainant affirms that Respondent simply states that the present UDRP proceeding is “illegal,” “unethical,” and a “force arbitration” but does not submit any facts in rebuttal of Complainant’s allegations regarding Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and bad faith registration and use of the Domain Names.
Complainant concludes that it has satisfied all three elements.
The Panel finds that the Complainant is indeed the owner of valid United States Federal registration for the HIGH HOLLER mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The Panel finds that, even though the Respondent denies the applicability of the UDRP on its response, the Respondent consented to be bound to the UDRP when it executed the Registration Agreements with the Registrars, as noted in the Registrars’ verification messages received by the Forum between September 10, 2014 and September 15, 2014. The verification e-mail from the registrars reflects that the UDRP applies to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.
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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
The Panel finds that the Respondent is indeed the Registrant of all disputed domain names since the Complainant gathered enough evidence that proof that connects Ezlease Propertys/ Keith Crawford/ Dale Crawford as a single Registrant. The Respondent has not denied this or has presented different information.
Complainant argues that all of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the HIGH ROLLER trademark. The Panel acknowledges that all of the <highrollerdates.com>, <highrollerweddingslv.com>, <highrollerdate.com>, <highrollerdatelv.com>, <winfreehighrollertickets.com>, <highrollerwheelweddings.com>, and <highrollerride.com> domain names tag either a related term such as “wheel” or “ride” or “tickets,” along with event-related terms such as “date(s)” or “weddings,” and in some instances the geographic abbreviation for Las Vegas, “lv.”
The Panel agrees that adding these terms, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” provide little in the way of distinction and, therefore, the Panel finds that all disputed domain names are confusingly similar with Complainant’s trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that as Respondent has failed to make meaningful allegations as to its tie to the domain names in the Response, there is no basis for finding that Respondent is indeed known by HIGH HOLLER.
The Panel notes that the domain names are a mix of websites that resolve to content discussing services offered at the HIGH ROLLER facility, or to websites that promote various third-party hyperlinks and finds that none of these uses conform to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) which requires a good faith offering of a commercial nature, or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) which requires that any noncommercial use be legitimate or fair.
Regarding the domain name <highrollerride.com> , the Panel finds that the passive holding of such a confusingly similar domain name is outside the bounds of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) , since it is 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)).
The Panel finds that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HIGH ROLLER trademark at the time the disputed domain names were registered, since the resolving pages contain content discussing Complainant’s Linq and Higher Roller projects. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent acted in bad faith under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent claims that the disputed domain names are all being used to profit from the likelihood of Internet users’ confusion as to Complainant’s association with the offerings. In particular, Complainant suggests that the <highrollerdate.com> and <highrollerdatelv.com> domain names feature information about the new HIGH ROLLER wheel. The Panel finds that taken together, the various uses of the domain names leave the impression that Respondent is affiliated with or in cahoots with Complainant when such a conclusion is patently false. Thus, this Panel finds that the Respondent acted in bad faith Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith.
Complainant also argues that the <highrollerride.com> domain name has no active use. This Panel finds that despite the non-use of this <highrollerride.com> domain name, the bad faith can be implied under 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 <highrollerdates.com>, <highrollerweddingslv.com>, <highrollerdate.com>, <highrollerdatelv.com>, <winfreehighrollertickets.com>, <highrollerwheelweddings.com>, and <highrollerride.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Eduardo Magalhães Machado Panelist
Dated: October 22, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page