Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Hollywood Casino, Dallas, TX, USA ("Complainant") represented by Arthur Seidel, Seidel, Gonda, Lavorgna, & Monaco. The Respondent is Go Call Inc., CANADA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "hollywoodcasino.net" registered with Network Solutions.

The Panelist certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her 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 September 28, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 2, 2000.

On 10/2/00, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "hollywoodcasino.net" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Res pondent 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 October 4, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 24, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respo ndent 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@hollywoodcasino.net 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 October 30, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin, 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 notic e 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, withou t 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

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

The Respondent offers online casino gaming at the domain name in question.

Given the Respondent’s failure to respond to the allegations set forth in the Complaint, the Panel will base the following discussion solely on the Complaint. ICANN Rules ¶ 14, 15. The Panel concludes that the Respondent does not contest any allega tion set forth in the Complaint. See id.

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.

The Complainant has rights in its registered marks containing the HOLLYWOOD CASINO term. The domain name registered by the Respondent is identical to the Complainant’s marks. The fact that the domain name has eliminated the space between the two wo rds in the Complainant’s mark and added the ".net" ending does not avoid confusing similarity with the Complainant’s marks. See Sulzer Vasutek Ltd. v. Adam Power/Mantis Surgical Ltd., AF 271 (eResolution Sept. 28, 2000) (finding that the domain nam es <vasutek.com>, <vasutek.net>, and <vasutek.org> are identical to the Complainant's trademark VASUTEK. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has met the burden set forth in Policy ¶ 4.a.(i).

The Complainant alleges that Respondent has no legitimate rights in the domain name in question other than to trade upon the established good will of the Complainant. The Respondent has not submitted any evidence to the Panel that would refute this allegation. Using the Complainant’s mark to divert internet traffic to an alternative site is not a legitimate, bona fide, or noncommercial use of the domain name. Policy ¶ 4.c.(i), (iii). See Kosmea Pty Limited v. Carmel Krpan, D2000-0948 (WIPO O ctober 3, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where the Respondent has an intention to divert consumers of the Complainant’s products to the Respondent’s site by using the Complainant’s mark).

Further, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the term HOLLYWOOD CASINO. Policy ¶ 4.c.(ii). While each of these words are rather nonspecific, the Complainant has been using these two words jointly as its mark, representing casi no, restaurant, and hotel services since at least as early as 1993. Based on the contact listed as the owner of the domain name, the Panel presumes that the Respondent is commonly known as "Go Call, Inc."

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has met the burden set forth in Policy ¶ 4.a.(ii).

The Complainant alleges that Respondent’s adoption and continued use of the domain name in question is in bad faith, and is a willful infringement of the Complainant’s rights. The Respondent has not refuted this allegation.

The Panel concludes that the Respondent did not come about this domain name inadvertently. Using the Complainant’s mark as a domain name that links to a site offering services of the same nature as the Complainant was not accidental. The Respondent cho se this domain name in order to cause confusion with the Complainant’s business and marks. By causing confusion with the Complainant’s marks, the Respondent is profiting by redirecting Internet traffic to its website that is actually seeking the Complaina nt’s website. Linking a domain name to another website, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location or of a production or ser vice on the web site or location is evidence of bad faith. Policy ¶ 4.b.(iv). See Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. v Shedon.com, D2000-0753 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that the Respondent violated Policy ¶ 4.b.(iv) by using the domain name <britan nnica.com> to hyperlink to a gambling site); Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet, Inc., D2000-0127 WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent attempted to attract customers to its website, <efitnesswholesale.com>, and create d confusion by offering similar products for sale as the Complainant). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has met the burden set forth in Policy ¶ 4.a.(iii).

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, "HOLLYWOODCASINO.NET", be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.