Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Repossessed by Go Daddy
Claim Number: FA2211002018713
Complainant is Las Vegas Sands Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Michael J. McCue, United States of America (“United States”). Respondent is Repossessed by Go Daddy
(“Respondent”), United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <marina-baysands.app> (the “disputed domain name”), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 2, 2022; Forum received payment on November 2, 2022.
On November 3, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <marina-baysands.app> disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 November 9, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 29, 2022 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@marina-baysands.app. Also on November 9, 2022, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 2, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant owns and operates world-renowned integrated resorts in Macau and Singapore. Complainant registered the MARINA BAY SANDS trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,279,949, registered on Jan. 22, 2013). Complainant also owns dozens of registered trademarks in numerous jurisdictions worldwide.
The trademarks referenced above will hereinafter be referred to as the “MARINA BAY SANDS Mark”.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <marina-baysands.app> disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, uses a hyphen to separate the terms MARINA and BAYSANDS, and then adds the “.app” generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”).
Complainant claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Among other things, Respondent initially attempted to pass off as Complainant, the disputed domain name having resolved to a website in which Respondent competes with Complainant to provide the same hotel services. The website has the same design, colors, and displays Complainant’s word mark and logo. As of the writing of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an error landing page that states: “This site can’t be reached. marina-baysands.app’s server IP address could not be found.”
Complainant also contends that Respondent registered and was using the disputed domain name in bad faith since it had the MARINA BAY SANDS Mark in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that Complainant has registered trademark rights in the MARINA BAY SANDS Mark. The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MARINA BAY SANDS Mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and 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 disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(3) the disputed 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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MARINA BAY SANDS Mark as set forth below.
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MARINA BAY SANDS Mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,279,949, registered on Jan. 22, 2013) and additionally has trademark rights in numerous jurisdictions worldwide. Registration of a trademark with multiple worldwide trademark offices is sufficient to establish rights in a mark. See Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. YINGFENG WANG, FA 1568531 (Forum Aug. 21, 2014) (“Complainant has rights in the ALIBABA mark under the Policy through registration with trademark authorities in numerous countries around the world.”). In addition, registration of a mark with the USPTO confers upon a complainant trademark rights for purposes of the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
The Panel further finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARINA BAY SANDS Mark as it consists of the entirety of Complainant’s trademark, uses a hyphen to separate the terms MARINA and BAYSANDS, and then is followed by the gTLD “.app”.
Registration of a disputed domain name that, as here, uses a mark, and then adds a hyphen in between, followed by a gTLD, does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Moreover, the addition of a gTLD in the disputed domain name is generally considered irrelevant when determining whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to another’s trademark. See Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (“The Panel also finds that Respondent’s <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ABT mark since addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MARINA BAY SANDS Mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Under the Policy, Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum April 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
In this case, Respondent did not carry its burden to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it did not submit a response to the Complaint, but given the facts of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent would have been hard pressed to furnish availing arguments had it chosen to respond.
In support, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any name similar to it, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its MARINA BAY SANDS Mark in the disputed domain name.
In addition, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. In particular, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the resolving competing website providing resort hotel services is one that initially passed off as Complainant’s, even using Complainant’s Mark and logo, and design and color scheme as its own. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainant.
The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
First, the use of a disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent’s website or online location by creating a likelihood of confusion or a false association with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website or online location demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Second, the fame of the MARINA BAY SANDS Mark, which was used and registered by Complainant years in advance of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, renders it wholly implausible that Respondent created the disputed domain name independently. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the MARINA SANDS Mark. Moreover, where a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known name, product or service, its use by someone with no connection to the name, product or service indicates bad faith.
Third, the Panel finds that Respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that competed with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent’s competing website demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum January 9, 2018) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established by 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 <marina-baysands.app> disputed domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Lynda M. Braun, Panelist
Dated: December 14, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page