Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Harrah's Las Vegas, Inc. v. Dotsan
Claim Number: FA0204000109715
PARTIES
Complainant
is Harrah's Las Vegas, Inc., Las
Vegas, NV (“Complainant”) represented by David
J. Stewart, of Alston & Bird,
LLP. Respondent is Dotsan, Mumbai, INDIA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <harrhas.com>,
registered with BulkRegister.
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.
Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on April 16, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 18, 2002.
On
April 17, 2002, BulkRegister confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <harrhas.com> is
registered with BulkRegister and that Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. BulkRegister has verified that
Respondent is bound by the BulkRegister registration agreement and has thereby
agreed to resolve domain-name
disputes brought by third parties in accordance
with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On
April 18, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of May 8, 2002
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@harrhas.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
May 21, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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 Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “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 Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Respondent’s
domain name <harrhas.com> is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s HARRAH’S mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent
registered and has used the domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is one of the largest
casino entertainment companies in the world, running twenty-five casino
entertainment facilities
in the United States.
Complainant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Harrah’s Entertainment,
Inc., a public corporation trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
Since at least as early as 1937,
Complainant has continuously used the service mark HARRAH’S in the United
States and abroad to identify
high quality casino, nightclub, theater, and
other entertainment services.
Complainant has continuously used its HARRAH’S mark in prominent
national and international promotion of its goods and services. In recognition of Complainant’s exclusive
rights in its mark, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted
Complainant
numerous registrations for marks that consist in whole or in part
of the HARRAH’S mark, including Reg. Nos. 1,067,887; 1,237,716;
1,831,759;
2,176,952; and 2,268,340. No other
party owns a U.S. registration for any mark that includes the term “Harrah’s”
for any goods or services.
Complainant also operates a website at
<harrahs.com>. At this site,
consumers can obtain information relating to Complainant’s hotels and
casinos. The site is used by consumers
to make hotel reservations and airline reservations to Las Vegas, Nevada.
Respondent registered the domain name <harrhas.com> some time after
Complainant’s operation of <harrahs.com>. It appears Respondent registered the disputed domain name in
hopes that Internet users would misspell “Harrah’s.” This is due to the fact that Respondent uses the disputed domain
name as a means to divert people to a series of websites that offer
online
casino gaming and sportsbook services.
Complainant’s counsel, on February 8,
2002, sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent via e-mail and international
airmail. Complainant never received a
response from Respondent in regard to the cease and desist letter.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to
“decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in
accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law
that it deems applicable.”
In view
of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's
undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the
Rules.
Paragraph
4(a) of the 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; and
(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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established its rights in
the HARRAH’S mark through registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office and continuous
subsequent use.
Respondent’s use of <harrhas.com> is confusingly similar to the HARRAH’S mark
because the only thing that separates the mark is the transposition of the
letters “a”
and “h.” An obvious
misspelling of the famous and distinct HARRAH’S mark does not defeat a
confusing similarity claim. See Google Inc. v. Jon G.,
FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be
confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and
noting that “[t]he
transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of
overcoming a claim of confusing similarity,
as the result reflects a very
probable typographical error”); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000)
(finding that the domain name <geociites.com> is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s GEOCITIES
mark); see generally Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13,
2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a
trademark has a greater tendency
to be confusingly similar to the trademark
where the trademark is highly distinctive).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
There
is no evidence that suggests Respondent is commonly known as “Harrhas” pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent is
only known to this panel as Dotsan. See
The Panel finds that Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name and, thus,
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, in order to divert
Internet users
to gambling websites.
Complainant is in the gambling business itself and it is clear that
Respondent uses the misspelled disputed domain name to attract
Complainant’s
customers who may be interested in gambling.
A domain name that is designed to divert Internet users to gambling
sites due to confusion is considered a bad faith use pursuant
to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See Mars, Inc. v. Double Down
Magazine, D2000-1644 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶
4(b)(iv) where Respondent linked the domain name <marssmusic.com>,
which
is identical to Complainant’s mark, to a gambling website); see also Encyclopaedia 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 <britannnica.com>
to
hyperlink to a gambling site).
Respondent’s use of the confusingly
similar disputed domain name is an obvious attempt to attract Internet users
who misspell HARRAH’S
by transposing the final “a” and “h.” This capitalization on a misspelling and likelihood
of confusion constitutes bad faith. See Harrah’s Las Vegas, Inc. v. Online
Casino Bonding Group, FA 100571 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Dec. 3, 2001)(finding
that a likelihood of confusion between the Respondent’s domain name offering
Internet
casino services and the Complainant’s famous casino mark indicates bad
faith); see generally Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94381
(Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s registration of
names of famous people, with slight typographical
errors, was evidence of bad
faith).
Furthermore, Complainant’s HARRAH’S mark
is well-known and it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the
disputed
domain name without knowledge of Complainant’s rights. If Respondent did not actually know of the
HARRAH’S mark, Respondent is considered to have had constructive notice of
Complainant’s
rights because of the fame and notoriety of the mark. Respondent’s registration of <harrhas.com>, therefore,
constitutes bad faith as an opportunistic attempt to trade on Complainant’s
fame and goodwill. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA
94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith
includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly
known mark at the time
of registration); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412
(WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that Respondent had actual and constructive
knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given
the world-wide prominence of the
mark and thus Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith).
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the required relief
should be hereby
granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <harrhas.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
May 29, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/787.html