Caesars License Company, LLC v 陈鑫 (xin chen)
WIPO Case No. D2024-0472
•20-03-2024
| ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Caesars License Company, LLC v. 陈鑫 (xin chen)
Case No. D2024-0472
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Caesars License Company, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg Traurig LLP, United States.
The Respondent is 陈鑫 (xin chen), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <caesarspalac.com> is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital
Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January
31, 2024. On February 1, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 2, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by
email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed
domain name which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 5,
2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the
Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in
English on February 6, 2024.
On February 5, 2024, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On February 6, 2024, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
page 2
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 14, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 5, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 6, 2024.
The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on March 18, 2024. The
Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and
Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the
Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant, Caesars License Company, LLC, which is affiliated with the NASDAQ-listed Caesars Entertainment Corporation, owns and operates the CAESARS PALACE casino hotel in Las Vegas, as well as other CAESARS-branded establishments in Atlantic City, United States; Cairo, Egypt; and Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Since its inauguration in 1966, the Complainant has attracted millions of visitors to its establishments. Additionally, the Complainant is a leading player in online and mobile gaming, offering multiple games and apps, with the Caesars Slots mobile app downloaded by over 10 million users globally. The Complainant has solidified its global reputation and success through considerable investments in promotional activities and advertising.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous CAESARS, CAESARS PALACE, and logo trademark
registrations around the world, including, but not limited to: Chinese Trademark Registration No. 11063967
for CAESARS PALACE (word mark), registered on December 7, 2013; Chinese Trademark Registration No.
11057831 for CAESARS PALACE (word mark), registered on December 14, 2013; and Chinese Trademark
Registration No. 6555917 for CAESARS (word mark) registered on January 21, 2011.
The Complainant also has a strong online presence and operates its main websites at the domain names
<caesars.com> and <caesarspalace.com>.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 18, 2023, and pointed to an active website in
English, impersonating the Complainant, prominently featuring the Complainant’s trademarks, adopting the
same look and feel of the Complainant’s website, and inviting visitors to create accounts. However, the
Panel notes that on the date of this Decision, the disputed domain name points to an inactive website.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.
Notably, the Complainant contends that it is the owner of a number of registered trademarks consisting of CAESARS and CAESARS PALACE (word marks and logo marks) and that it has a strong reputation for the products under this trademark. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the abovementioned trademarks since it incorporates the CAESARS PALACE marks in their entirety, omitting only the last letter “e”. The Complainant essentially contends that the Respondent has linked the disputed domain name to an imposter website and may be running a fraudulent scheme via such website (due to the fact that Internet users are requested to create accounts), and that the Respondent is impersonating the Complainant for undue commercial gain. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that such use made of the disputed domain name does not confer any rights or legitimate interests and that it proves that the Respondent registered and is using it in bad faith.
page 3
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.
The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be
English for several reasons, including the fact that the disputed domain name contains English words in Latin
script, rather than Chinese script; that the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s CAESARS
and CAESARS PALACE marks, which consist of English letters; and the fact that the disputed domain name
resolves to a website that impersonates the Complainant’s website and contains only English words and
characters, which indicates the Respondent’s familiarity with the English language. The Complainant also
submits that Chinese as the language of the proceeding would unnecessarily burden the Complainant and
unnecessarily delay the proceeding.
The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding nor reply to the Complainant’s allegations.
In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
The Panel finds that the Complainant’s marks for CAESARS PALACE are clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name, since the disputed domain name fully incorporates these marks, be it that the last letter “e” is omitted from such marks. The Panel sees this as a clearly intentional misspelling of the
Complainant’s trademarks. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to these marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.9.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
page 4
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in domain names may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.
Moreover, upon review of the facts and evidence, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not provided any evidence of the use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, upon review of the facts and the evidence submitted in this proceeding, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name directed to an active website which showed a
| commercial gain. In fact, said website prominently featured the Complainant’s trademarks, adopted the | clear intent on the part of the Respondent to misleadingly pass it off as the Complainant’s website, for circumstances, the Respondent was not acting as a good faith provider of goods or services under the disputed domain name, see also Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. The Panel also finds that there are no other circumstances apparently conferring any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. Given the abovementioned elements, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. |
| However, the Panel notes that on the date of this Decision, the disputed domain name directs to an inactive or blank webpage. In this regard, the Panel finds that holding a domain name passively, without making any use of it, also does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the | |
| Respondent (see in this regard earlier UDRP decisions such as Bollore SE v. 赵竹飞 (Zhao Zhu Fei), WIPO Case No. D2020-0691; and Vente-Privee.Com and Vente-Privee.com IP S.à.r.l. v. 崔郡 (jun cui), WIPO Case No. D2021-1685). | |
| Finally, the Panel also finds that the nature of the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks in their entirety and consisting of an intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s well known mark CEASARS PALACE, carries a risk of implied affiliation and cannot constitute fair use, as it effectively impersonates the Complainant and its products and services or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1). | |
| Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. |
page 5
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel notes that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
Given the intensive use and very strong reputation of the Complainant’s prior registered trademarks, the Panel finds that the subsequent registration of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to such marks, clearly and consciously targeted the Complainant’s prior registered trademarks. In this regard,
the Panel refers to earlier decisions by panels applying the Policy which have found the Complainant’s marks
to be well known, such as Caesars License Company, LLC v. Oleg Robbinson, WIPO Case No.
D2023-1375. The Panel therefore deducts from the Respondent’s efforts to consciously target the
Complainant’s well known prior trademarks that the Respondent knew of the existence of the Complainant’s
trademarks at the time of registering the disputed domain name. This finding is confirmed by the fact that the
website linked to the disputed domain name was used to impersonate the Complainant, since this proves
that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s business and its prior trademarks. In the Panel’s
view, the foregoing elements clearly indicate bad faith on the part of the Respondent, and the Panel
therefore finds that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in
bad faith.
As to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain name directed to an active website which showed a clear intent on the part of the Respondent to misleadingly pass it off as the Complainant’s website, by prominently featuring the Complainant’s
trademarks, adopting the same look and feel of the Complainant’s website, and inviting visitors to create demonstrated that the Respondent has used and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
accounts, which, furthermore, presented a grave risk of fraudulent transactions and theft of personal
information. The Panel concludes from these facts that the Respondent is intentionally attracting Internet
users for commercial gain to such website, by creating consumer confusion between the website associated
with the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks. This constitutes direct evidence of the
Furthermore, the Panel notes that on the date of this Decision, the disputed domain name directs to an inactive or blank website. UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. Although panels will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, and (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness, well known nature, and longstanding use of the Complainant’s trademarks, the composition of the disputed domain name, being an intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s well known trademark, the fact that the disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name <caesarspalace.com>, the provision of the incomplete and false contact details by the Respondent when registering the disputed domain name, the lack of response of the Respondent to the Complaint, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
page 6
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <caesarspalac.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
/Deanna Wong Wai Man/
Deanna Wong Wai Man
Sole Panelist
Date: March 20, 2024
0
0
0