DECISION

 

Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Minh Quan Nguyen

Claim Number: FA2501002137940

PARTIES

Complainant is Las Vegas Sands Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Michael J. McCue of WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Las Vegas, USA. Respondent is Minh Quan Nguyen ("Respondent"), Vietnam.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <govenetianmacau.com>, registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com.

 

PANEL

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 Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 30, 2025; Forum received payment on January 30, 2025.

 

On February 3, 2025, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <govenetianmacau.com> domain name is registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.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 February 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Japanese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 2025 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@govenetianmacau.com. Also on February 4, 2025, the Japanese and English 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 in Japanese and English.

 

On February 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

Complainant has submitted that the administrative proceeding be conducted in the English language pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a). That Rule provides that the language of the proceeding is to be the language of the registration agreement relating to the domain name at issue, unless the Panel determines that it should be a different language having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding. Complainant makes this request in light of the Japanese language Registration Agreement. It is also established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Previous panels have looked for factors that show familiarity with the suggested alternative language, in the present case English. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language). Further, the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Japanese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party.  See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, "It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.").

 

In that regard, the Complainant submits and has established that the Respondent probably has the ability to understand and converse in English, such that conducting the proceeding in English will not prejudice the Respondent. The Complainant relies on the following circumstances:

 

(a)        the Respondent's website is available in Vietnamese and English, not Japanese;

(b)        the domain name at issue encompasses the English word "go" and does not include Japanese characters or syllabaries;

(c)       all of the evidence shows that the website is directed to an English-speaking public; and

(d)        it would require unnecessary cost and time to translate all the papers into Japanese.

The Panel agrees.

 

Accordingly, and pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by the Complainant to show that the Respondent is probably conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering all of the circumstance of the proceeding, the Panel therefore decides that the proceeding should be conducted in the English language.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

    Complainant made the following contentions.

1.       The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of casino and resort services and related goods and services and one if its resorts is The Venetian Macao which it has operated since 1999.

2.       The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for VENETIAN with respect to casino and gaming services. In particular, the evidence will establish that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the VENETIAN service mark by virtue of its registration of  that service mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration Number 2,507,363, registered on November 13, 2001, and numerous other trademarks for VENETIAN and derivatives registered domestically with USPTO and internationally (collectively "the VENETIAN trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services.

3.       The VENETIAN trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services.

4.       As well as its trademark, the Complainant has registered the domain names <venetian.com> and <venetianmacao.com> among others that it uses for websites  where it markets its products and activities, in particular its resort The Venetian Macao under the VENETIAN trademark and brand.

5.       The Respondent registered the <govenetianmacau.com> domain name on December 11, 2024 ("the disputed domain name").

6.       The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the VENETIAN trademark with the addition of the words "go" and "macau" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com".

7.       The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VENETIAN trademark.

8.       The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:

(a)        the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i);

(b)        the Complainant has never given any licence, permission or authority to the Respondent to use the VENETIAN trademark and there has never been any affiliation, sponsorship or relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent;

(c)       the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);

(d)        the Respondent has not used the domain name for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); and

(e)        there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

9.       The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because:

(a)                      the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its VENETIAN trademark when it registered the disputed domain name;

(b)                      the Respondent's aforesaid conduct has generated confusion between the Complainant's and the Respondent's websites and to give the false impression that the Respondent's website is associated with the Complainant, its trademark and its official website, within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv);

(c)                      the Respondent's aforesaid conduct was also calculated to give the false impression that it and its website are associated with the Complainant's famous Venetian resort casino; and

(d)                      all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

    Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.       The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of casino and resort services and related goods and services and one if its resorts is The Venetian Macao which it has operated since 1999.

2.       The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for VENETIAN with respect to casino and gaming services. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the VENETIAN service mark by virtue of its registration of that service mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration Number 2,507,363, registered on November 13, 2001, and numerous other trademarks for VENETIAN and derivatives registered domestically with the USPTO and internationally (collectively "the VENETIAN trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services.

3.       The Respondent registered the <govenetianmacau.com> domain name on December 11, 2024 ("the disputed domain name").

4.       The Respondent has used the domain name for a website that falsely purports to be an official website of the Complainant, uses the VENETIAN trademark and its well-known associated lion logo without permission, solicits personal information from internet users and infringes the Complainant's trademark with the intention of deceiving internet users.

5.       By reason of the matters aforesaid and as demonstrated by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's VENETIAN trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the domain name has been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith.

6.       Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred to the 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 first question that arises is whether the Complainant has a trademark or service mark on which it may rely in this proceeding. The evidence has established that the Complainant provides its resort and casino services under the trademark for VENETIAN. In particular, the evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the VENETIAN service mark by virtue of its registration of that service mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration Number 2,507,363, registered on November 13, 2001, and numerous other trademarks for VENETIAN and derivatives registered domestically with the USPTO and internationally (collectively "the VENETIAN trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since its registration to offer its goods and services.

The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's VENETIAN trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VENETIAN trademark for the following reasons. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the VENETIAN trademark with the addition of the words "go" and "macau" and the generic Top Level Domain ".com". It is well established that where a domain name includes the entirety of a trademark it is far more likely than not that the domain name is invoking the trademark, and that must be so in the present case. Internet users would therefore conclude that the principal purpose of the domain name is to invoke the Complainant and its services offered under its trademark. The addition of the word "go" generates the notion that consumers should go to the Venetian resort and the addition of the word "macau" generates the notion that it is the Venetian resort at Macau that is being referred to. Internet users would also naturally assume that the domain name was either a domain name of the Complainant or one that has been created with the knowledge and consent of the Complainant. The addition of the Top Level Domain ".com" is ignored in the interpretation of a domain name and cannot negate a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark, as all domain names require such an extension.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's VENETIAN trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).

 

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations, taken in the order in which they are raised by the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because:

(a)       the Respondent has not used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); it cannot be bona fide for the Respondent to have taken the Complainant's trademark and to use it for a website where, as the Panel has seen from Exhibit 5, it reproduces the trademark and Complainant's well-known lion logo with an image of the casino itself as the background, which the Panel has seen from the official website at <venetianmacao.com>; moreover, the website is devoted to a series of invitations to log-in to the user's account or to create an account, which is obviously designed to obtain personal information under the guise of the site being an official and legitimate site; such conduct is highly improper and deceptive and could not possibly give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name used to perpetrate this subterfuge and potential fraud;

(b)        the evidence is that the Complainant has never given any licence, permission or authority to the Respondent to use the VENETIAN trademark and there has never been any affiliation, sponsorship or relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent; thus, there is no possibility that the domain name could have been registered with any sort of consent from the Complainant;

(c)        the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is so named, either commonly or at all and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own;

(d)        the Respondent has not used the domain name for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); there is nothing legitimate in taking another person's trademark and using it for such a deceptive purpose which is of course an infringement of the trademark; nor is such conduct noncommercial as it must have been engaged in to make money illegally; it is also not fair, either to the Complainant or to internet users generally, as it is they who will be deceived by the offending website; and

(e)        the evidence shows that there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name;

The Complainant has therefore made out all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

 

All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent.

 

As the Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

 

The Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in the Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

The Complainant has submitted on several grounds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. In view of the evidence discussed above, which is equally applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on, as the Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name and in particular in the deception in which it has engaged. In particular, it is clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

(a)                      the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its VENETIAN trademark when it registered the disputed domain name; the only conclusion that can be reached on this issue is that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its VENETIAN trademark and famous logo when it registered the disputed domain name; that is so because it has brazenly used them and it was pivotal to the Respondent's deceptive conduct that it actually knew the name of the Complainant's resort, its trademark and its brand; it could not have set up its website without having such actual knowledge;

(b)                      the Respondent's aforesaid conduct has sought to generate confusion between the Complainant's and the Respondent's websites and to give the false impression that the Respondent's website is associated with the Complainant, its trademark and its official website, within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); it was pivotal to the Respondent's scheme that it wanted to give the false impression that it either was the Complainant itself or was using the Complainant's trademark and brand with the consent of the Complainant; thus, it wanted to confuse internet users into believing that it was legitimately seeking the information it invited internet users to give; this conduct brings the case squarely within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv);

(c)                      the Respondent's aforesaid conduct was also calculated to give the false impression that it and its website are associated with the Complainant's famous Venetian resort casino; this has been clearly established by the evidence; and

(d)                      all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have shown that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name using the VENETIAN trademark and in view of the conduct of the Respondent, as shown by all of the available evidence, the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.

The Complainant has also correctly cited several prior UDRP decisions that support all of its contentions.

The Complainant has therefore established all of the elements that it must show under the Policy and is entitled to the relief it seeks.

 

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 <govenetianmacau.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC,

Panelist

Dated: February 26, 2025