DECISION

 

Kerzner International Limited v. ramez noman

Claim Number: FA2601002201035

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Kerzner International Limited ("Complainant"), Bahamas, represented by James R. Davis of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, United States. Respondent is ramez noman ("Respondent"), Saudi Arabia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <atlantisjeddah.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 21, 2026; Forum received payment on January 21, 2026.

 

On January 22, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <atlantisjeddah.com> 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 January 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 12, 2026 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@atlantisjeddah.com. Also on January 23, 2026, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On February 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a developer and operator of resorts, hotels, and residences, including ATLANTIS-branded luxury resorts located in the Middle East, China, and the Bahamas. Complainant states that its ATLANTIS resort in the Middle East alone typically generates

annual revenue exceeding $500 million. Complainant has used the ATLANTIS mark in connection with resort hotels and related services since 1994 and claims that the mark is famous. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations for ATLANTIS in standard character form in Saudi Arabia and many other jurisdictions around the world, and also asserts common law rights in the mark.

 

The disputed domain name <atlantisjeddah.com> was registered in February 2022. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name does not resolve to a website. It is listed for sale at the registrar's website as a "premium domain" for $250,000. Complainant alleges that Respondent selected the domain name in speculation that Complainant would promote or provide services in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, a coastal city that Complainant claims is "ripe for another ATLANTIS-branded property." Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <atlantisjeddah.com> is confusingly similar to its ATLANTIS mark; 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.

 

FINDINGS

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.

 

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <atlantisjeddah.com> incorporates Complainant's registered ATLANTIS trademark, adding the geographic term "Jeddah" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Ashley Bundhun, FA 2164772 (Forum Aug. 6, 2025) (finding <disneylandabudhabi.com> confusingly similar to DISNEYLAND); Marriott International, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1852985 (Forum Aug. 19, 2019) (finding <gaylordpacific.com> confusingly similar to GAYLORD HOTELS); Peabody Management, Inc. v. Shawn Boedecker, FA 1746738 (Forum Oct. 8, 2017) (finding <peabodyroanoke.com> confusingly similar to THE PEABODY, PEABODY HOTEL GROUP, and PEABODY); Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Daniel Kirchhof, Unister GmbH, D2010-1960 (WIPO Dec. 30, 2010) (finding <olaya-holiday-inn-riyadh.com> confusingly similar to HOLIDAY INN). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name other than to offer it for sale. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Ashley Bundhun, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Marriott International, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, supra (same); Peabody Management, Inc. v. Shawn Boedecker, 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.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name."

 

Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark. There is no indication that Respondent has made any active use of the domain name other than to offer it for sale at a price far in excess of the registration cost. The Panel is inclined to agree with Complainant's allegations regarding Respondent's reasons for selecting the domain name. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Ashley Bundhun, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Marriott International, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, supra (same); Peabody Management, Inc. v. Shawn Boedecker, supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: February 13, 2026