DECISION

 

Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Dima Prost

Claim Number: FA2403002087271

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Las Vegas Sands Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Michael J. McCue of LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP, Nevada, USA. Respondent is Dima Prost ("Respondent"), Ukraine.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <venetianresort.site>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 6, 2024; Forum received payment on March 6, 2024.

 

On March 6, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <venetianresort.site> 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 March 8, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 28, 2024 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@venetianresort.site. Also on March 8, 2024, 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 March 29, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it owns and operates world-renowned resort casinos in the United States, Macao, and Singapore. Specifically, Complainant currently owns and operates The Venetian Resort Las Vegas and the Sands Expo and Convention Center in Las Vegas, Nevada; the Venetian Macao, Sands Macao, The Londoner Macao, The Plaza Macao and Four Seasons Hotel Macao, and the Parisian Macao in Macao; and the Marina Bay Sands in Singapore. Complainant has rights in the VENETIAN mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2008. The mark is also registered elsewhere around the world.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its VENETIAN mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "resort" along with the ".site" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the VENETIAN mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain resolves to a website that purports to promote a competing hotel, called "Venetian Resort Casino". However that offer may be fake: the resolving website identifies the location of the competing "Venetian Resort Hotel Casino" as being at "16 The Esplanade, Airlie Beach QLD 4802, AU", but a search of that address shows that that location corresponds to a hotel called "Airlie Beach Hotel". Moreover, reverse image searches show that the photographs of hotel rooms on the resolving website are generic images found online, including for linen stores. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert internet traffic for commercial gain by purporting to offer competing services (which may be fake). Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the VENETIAN mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark VENTIAN and uses it to offer hotel and casino services.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to at least 2008.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2024.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving website purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's VENETIAN mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "resort" and the ".site" generic top-level domain. This fails sufficiently to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as "Operi Manaha," and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.). Here, the WHOIS information provided by the registrar lists the registrant as "Dima Prost". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving purports to provide services that compete with those of Complainant. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use" where "Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services."). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. The use of a disputed domain name to offer products or services similar to a complainant's evinces an intent to attract internet users for commercial gain per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <venetianresort.site> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: March 29, 2024