About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Caesars License Company, LLC v. Sony Group

Case No. D2021-2842

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 Sony Group, Cambodia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <caesars4d.live> (the “Domain Name”), is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 28, 2021. On August 30, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 30, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 3, 2021 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 on September 7, 2021.

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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 8, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 28, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 25, 2021.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on November 1, 2021. 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.

The invitation to the Complainant to file an amended Complaint stemmed from the fact that the Domain Name was registered in the name of a privacy service. In response to the Center’s registrar verification request, the Registrar disclosed the name and address of the entity in whose name the Domain Name is currently registered. The amended Complaint names the underlying registrant as the Respondent.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the owner and operator of the Caesar’s Palace casino hotel in Las Vegas, United States and is the registered proprietor of numerous trade mark registrations around the world of or incorporating the name “Caesar’s” including, by way of example, United States Registration No. 954,684 CAESARS (typed drawing) registered on March 6, 1973 (application filed January 19, 1972) in class 41 for the provision of health club, night club entertainment and casino services.

The Domain Name was registered on October 21, 2020 and is not connected to an active website. It connects to an error page headed “Error 522”. The central message reads: “What Happened? The initial connection between Cloudfare’s network and the origin web server timed out. As a result, the web page can not be displayed.” The message goes on to recommend that the visitor tries again “in a few minutes” and informs that the fault is at the host’s end. The Panel has retried on several occasions without success.

Prior to the correspondence referred to below, the Domain Name was connected to a website featuring the name “Caesar’s 4D” at top left of the home page along with various other insignia exclusively associated with the Complainant. A banner headline reading “Welcome to Caesar’s4D The Biggest Online Lottery” was followed by text commencing: “Welcome to caesars4d.com Thank you for introducing you [sic] to one of the most popular sites in the Las Vegas, United States of America.” The page contains a photograph of a street scene in Las Vegas, in which the Complainant’s Caesar’s Palace casino features prominently. The website invites payment for entry to the advertised lottery by way of well-known service providers such as Mastercard, Visa, American Express and PayPal amongst others. A copyright notice at the foot of the page reads: “Copyright © 2015 www.Caesars4d.com.”

On August 16, 2021 the Complainant’s representative wrote to the “Beneficial Owner of <Caesars4d.live>” drawing the Respondent’s attention to the Complainant’s trade mark rights and seeking inter alia cessation of use of the Domain Name and transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.

On August 17, 2021 the Complainant’s representative received a reply from Cloudfare stating that it is a network provider offering a reverse proxy, pass-through security service, not a hosting provider and does not control its customer’s website content. The email goes on to state that it has forwarded the complaint to the responsible hosting provider.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The essence of the Complainant’s case is that the Respondent has set out to impersonate the Complainant for commercial gain.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name comprises the trade mark CAESARS, followed by the term “4d” and the “.live” generic Top-Level Domain identifier.

Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition explains the test for identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy and includes the following passage:

“While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.”

The Complainant’s CAESARS trade mark is readily recognizable in its entirety in the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. In support of that contention, the Complainant asserts that it has no connection with the Respondent and has granted the Respondent no permission to use its CAESARS trade mark. The Complainant recites the provisions of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy setting out the circumstances, any of which if found by the Panel to be present, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests for the purposes of this element of the Policy and contends that none of them is applicable. The Complainant contends that, as can be seen from the factual background in section 4 above, the Respondent’s sole purpose in selecting and using the Domain Name has been to impersonate the Complainant for commercial gain, a purpose incapable of giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant’s contentions are well-founded. The Respondent has not answered the Complainant’s contentions and could not sensibly have done so. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances, which if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Complainant relies primarily upon sub-paragraph (iv), which provides: “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”

As can be seen from C above, the Panel has found that in registering and using the Domain Name as it has, the Respondent has intentionally set out to impersonate the Complainant for commercial gain. Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is phrased, as to use, in the present tense (“is using”). Although the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name seems to have ceased, in the view of the Panel, while the Domain Name remains in the hands of the Respondent, it represents a malicious threat hanging over the head of the Complainant and, as such, constitutes a continuing bad faith use of the Domain Names.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

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 Domain Name, <caesars4d.live>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: November 4, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/