Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. marco setiawan
Claim Number: FA2105001945387
Complainant is Las Vegas Sands Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Michael J. McCue of Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Nevada, USA. Respondent is marco setiawan ("Respondent"), Indonesia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <parisianmacao.xyz>, registered with NameCheap, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 17, 2021; the Forum received payment on May 17, 2021.
On May 18, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <parisianmacao.xyz> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 May 24, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 14, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@parisianmacao.xyz. Also on May 24, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 June 16, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 owns and operates resort casinos in the United States, Macao, and Singapore. Among these is The Parisian, a resort hotel and casino in Macao that opened in 2016. Complainant announced plans for The Parisian in 2012, and in anticipation of its opening, Complainant applied for and obtained trademark registrations in Macao and throughout Asia for THE PARISIAN and 澳门巴黎人 (which translates to "Macao Parisian" in English) in standard character form and for a logo of which the textual components are THE PARISIAN MACAO and 澳门巴黎人. Complainant owns and uses the domain name <parisianmacao.com> in connection with its The Parisian resort casino.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <parisianmacao.xyz> via a privacy registration service in April 2021. The domain name is being used for a website that displays a logo that differs from Complainant's logo but contains PARISIAN MACAO as its only text. The website has a background image that appears to be a photograph of Complainant's The Parisian resort casino, with a portion of Complainant's logo easily visible. The website offers or links to online gambling services. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized to use Complainant's marks.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <parisianmacao.xyz> is confusingly similar to its THE PARISIAN and 澳门巴黎人 marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <parisianmacao.xyz> incorporates Complainant's registered THE PARISIAN trademark, omitting the definite article "the" and adding the geographic term "Macao," which refers to one of the locations at which Complainant operates a resort casino under the mark; and appending the ".xyz" top-level domain. It also corresponds to the English-language translation of Complainant's registered 澳门巴黎人 mark. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's marks. See, e.g., Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Yile Chen, FA 1937225 (Forum Apr. 19, 2021) (finding <macaoparisian.com> confusingly similar to THE PARISIAN and 澳门巴黎人); Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1865995 (Forum Nov. 12, 2019) (finding <parisianmacao-com.com> confusingly similar to THE PARISIAN); Expedia, Inc. v. JH Kang, FA 1732787 (Forum July 1, 2017) (finding <expediade.xyz> confusingly similar to EXPEDIA). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name corresponds to Complainant's marks without authorization, and is being used for a website that displays Complainant's marks and otherwise attempts to pass off as Complainant while promoting services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Such conduct does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Yile Chen, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, supra (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name corresponding to Complainant's marks and is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant and promote competing services, presumably for Respondent's commercial gain. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Yile Chen, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <parisianmacao.xyz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 17, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page