Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Park Place Entertainment Corp., Las Vegas, NV, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Jean Conille, HT ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "casinoparislasvegas.com" registered with Network Solutions.

The Panelist, James P. Buchele certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on August 25, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 25, 2000.

On 08/28/00, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "casinoparislasvegas.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On August 29, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 18, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@casinoparislasvegas.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On September 25, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform Rules "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

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

A. Complainant

Respondent’s CASINOPARISLASVEGAS.COM domain name infringes upon trademark rights belonging to Complainant. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the CASINOPARISLASVEGAS.COM domain name and as such, the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent submitted no response in this matter and, accordingly, all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the Complaint will be deemed to be true. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint).

Complainant, Park Place Entertainment Corporation, owns and operates the Paris Las Vegas casino and hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A. The Complainant opened the Paris Las Vegas casino and hotel for business on September 1, 1999. The Paris Las Vegas casino and hotel consists of an 83,000-square-foot casino, 2,916 guest rooms and replicas of Parisian landmarks including a 540 foot version of the Eiffel Tower.

Complainant is the owner of trademark rights in the mark PARIS LAS VEGAS. Complainant has acquired rights in its PARIS LAS VEGAS mark under U.S. State and Federal common law as a result of its substantial use of the mark. Complainant uses its PARIS LAS VEGAS mark in conjunction with, among other things, casino services, entertainment services and hotel and restaurant services, both at its casino and hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, and on-line. With respect to casino services, the Paris Las Vegas casino and hotel includes over 2000 slot machines, 100 table games including black jack and poker, and a race and sports book. With respect to hotel services, Complainant’s Paris Las Vegas casino and hotel includes 2,916 rooms. With respect to restaurant services, Complainant’s Paris Las Vegas casino and hotel includes eight authentic French restaurants. Complainant also uses its PARIS LAS VEGAS mark in conjunction with entertainment services, including concerts by well known performers. The notoriety of the Paris Las Vegas casino and hotel is world-wide even though it has been open a relatively short time; and thus, the Complainant’s PARIS LAS VEGAS mark is distinctive and well known.

Complainant filed service mark application No. 75/622,575 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 14, 1999 for the service mark PARIS LAS VEGAS.

Complainant operates web sites accessible at the domain names <PARISLASVEGAS.COM> and <PARIS-LV.COM>. Complainant is the owner of both domain names, which were registered prior to the opening of the Paris Las Vegas casino and hotel. At both domain sites, Complainant operates web sites that include its PARIS LAS VEGAS mark used in conjunction with dining, casino, and entertainment services.

Respondent registered the domain name in question on August 19, 1999. At this website, the Respondent offers casino services similar to those offered by the Complainant. The home page of Respondent’s web site includes Complainant’s PARIS LAS VEGAS mark as its heading and includes a picture of the Eiffel Tower. This logo is similar, if not identical to, Complainant’s mark and design.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

Rights in a mark can be established by a pending trademark application. See SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Tariq Masood and Solo Signs, D2000 - 0131 (WIPO April 13, 2000) (finding that the ICANN Rules do not require that the Complainant's trade mark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist); Phone-N-Phone Services (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Shlomi (Salomon) Levi, D2000-00400 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (finding that the domain name was identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s pending service mark application). Complainant has rights in the pending service mark application for the mark PARIS LAS VEGAS.

Respondent’s "casinoparislasvegas.com" domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PARIS LAS VEGAS mark, being nearly identical to Complainant’s mark in sight, sound and meaning. Respondent’s domain name incorporates in its entirety the Complainant’s mark in addition to the pre-fix "casino." This prefix is an identifier of the services that Respondent offers at its site but which the consuming public also associates with Complainant’s services. Thus the domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word "shop" with the Complainant’s registered mark "llbean" does not circumvent the Complainant’s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy).

Respondent has not denied the allegations of no rights or legitimate interests set forth in the Complaint.

Respondent does not have any legitimate rights to Complainant’s PARIS LAS VEGAS mark. Respondent has no association with Paris or Las Vegas nor has been commonly known by the domain name. Policy ¶ 4.c.(ii). Further, Respondent does not own or operate an independent business by that name. Respondent intentionally chose to use Complainant’s mark in order to mislead and divert consumers seeking Complainant’s services and financially gain therefrom. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services and therefore fails to meet the standard set forth in Policy ¶ 4.c.(i) or (iii). See McNeil Consumer Brands Inc v. Mirweb Solutions, D2000-0612 (WIPO Aug. 3, 2000) (finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name "tylenol.org").

Respondent has not denied the allegations of bad faith set forth in the Complaint.

Respondent intentionally has attempted to mislead customers who visit the site into believing that the site is sponsored by Complainant in that the "home page" of Respondent’s web site includes Complainant’s PARIS LAS VEGAS mark as its heading and includes a picture of the Eiffel Tower. Attracting Internet users to one’s website, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source of one’s website is evidence of bad faith. Policy ¶ 4.b.(iv). See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Latingrocer.com, FA 94384 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent’s sites pass users through to Respondent’s competing business).

Respondent has offered casino services that are similar to and compete with the Complainant’s services. Registering a domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor is evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name. Policy ¶ 4.b.(iii). See Puckett d/b/a Nature’s Window v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that Respondent has diverted business from the Complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy 4(b)(iii)).

The above argument is evidence of bad faith use and registration of the domain name "casinoparislasvegas.com."

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, "casinoparislasvegas.com", be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

James P. Buchele, Arbitrator

Dated: October 6, 2000