Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. WeiFeng Xia WeiFeng Xia
Claim Number: FA1703001721634
Complainant is Las Vegas Sands Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Michael J. McCue of Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie, LLP, Nevada, USA. Respondent is WeiFeng Xia WeiFeng Xia (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <venetiannacao.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 Forum electronically on March 14, 2017; the Forum received payment on March 14, 2017.
On March 22, 2017, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <venetiannacao.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 March 23, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 12, 2017 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@venetiannacao.com. Also on March 23, 2017, 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 April 27, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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, Las Vegas Sands Corp. (“LVSC”), is in the business of operating resort casinos in the United States, Macao, and Singapore. Complainant uses the THE VENITIAN trademark in connection with its business. Complainant has rights in the THE VENITIAN mark as a result of its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,295,362, registered Nov. 30, 1999). Respondent’s <venetiannacao.com> is confusingly similar to the THE VENITIAN mark because it incorporates the mark, less the “the”. The disputed domain also adds a misspelled form of Macao, “nacao”, and finally a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <venetiannacao.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use its THE VENITIAN mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services but rather uses the <venetiannacao.com> to pass itself off as Complainant for commercial gain. Currently, the disputed domain resolves to a website that attempts to imitate the Chinese language homepage of Complainant’s website at Complainant’s <venetianmacao.com> domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the domain name <venetiannacao.com> in bad faith. Respondent is attempting to profit off of the goodwill established in Complainant’s mark, and is creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website by using a similar color scheme and the marks of Complainant. Therefore, Respondent has engaged in bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent’s creation of a false impression that its services originate with or are offered or endorsed by Complainant shows bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the famous THE VENETIAN marks. And Respondent engaged in typosquatting under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant LVSC is in the business of operating resort casinos in the United States, Macao, and Singapore. Complainant has rights in its THE VENITIAN trademark as a result of registration with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 2,295,362, registered Nov. 30, 1999). Respondent’s <venetiannacao.com> is confusingly similar to the THE VENITIAN mark.
Respondent, WeiFeng Xia WeiFeng Xia, registered the <venetiannacao.com> domain name on September 9, 2016.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <venetiannacao.com>. mark. Respondent uses the <venetiannacao.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant for commercial gain. Currently, the disputed domain resolves to a website that attempts to imitate the Chinese language homepage of Complainant’s website at Complainant’s <venetianmacao.com> domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the domain name <venetiannacao.com> in bad faith.
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 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 (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.”).
Complainant LVSC is in the business of operating resort casinos in the United States, Macao, and Singapore. Complainant has rights in its THE VENITIAN trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as a result of registration with the USPTO. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1627542 (Forum Aug. 9, 2015) (finding that Complainant has rights in the METROPCS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office).
Respondent’s <venetiannacao.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE VENITIAN mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain incorporates Complainant’s mark, less the “the”, also adds a misspelled form of Macao, “nacao”, and finally a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <venetiannacao.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its THE VENETIAN mark. The WHOIS information lists “WeiFeng Xia WeiFeng Xia” as registrant of the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information listed “Fred Wallace” as the registrant).
Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant’s Macau hotel operation by mimicking Complainant’s official website. Respondent is using the domain name for commercial gain. See Kmart of Mich., Inc. v. Cone, FA 655014 (Forum Apr. 25, 2006) (The panel found the respondent’s attempt to pass itself of as the complainant was 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) when the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was nearly identical to the complainant’s website); see also Dream Horse Classifieds v. Mosley, FA 381256 (Forum Feb. 8, 2005) (finding the respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as the complainant by implementing a color scheme identical to the complainant’s was evidence that respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).
Respondent has registered and used the domain name <venetiannacao.com> in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the primary purpose of disrupting Complainant’s online retail business. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant which is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant for commercial gain is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent’s use of Complainant’s THE VENETIAN mark, in conjunction with the confusingly similar domain name and for commercial gain, creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”).
Respondent engaged in typosquatting and therefore had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the THE VENETIAN mark when Respondent registered and subsequently used the <venetiannacao.com> domain name. Respondent’s actions constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Under Armour, Inc. v. JEFF RANDALL, FA 1585022 (Forum November 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s <unerarmour.com> domain name constitutes typosquatting of the complainant’s UNDER ARMOUR mark, which is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters – the addition of the “www” prefix to a known trademark, in this case the DOGPILE mark. Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inference [sic], Respondent’s actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.”)
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <venetiannacao.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: April 27, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page