DECISION

Donald J. Trump and Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc v. Steven Ciaccio

Claim Number: FA0112000102809

PARTIES

Complainant is Donald J. Trump and Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc., New York, NY (“Complainant”) represented by Melissa L. Klipp, of Drinker, Biddle & Shanley, LLP.  Respondent is Steven Ciaccio, Tampa, FL (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <trumpcasinoscentral.com>, <trumpcasinosonline.com>, and <trumptajcentral.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

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.

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on December 10, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 11, 2001.

On December 12, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <trumpcasinoscentral.com>, <trumpcasinosonline.com>, and

<trumptajcentral.com> are registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 5.0 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 December 13, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 2, 2001 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@trumpcasinoscentral.com, postmaster@trumpcasinosonline.com, and postmaster@trumptajcentral.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 January 10, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 names be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The <trumpcasinoscentral.com>, <trumpcasinosonline.com>, and <trumptajcentral.com> domain name are confusingly similar to Complainant's TRUMP, TRUMP CASINO and TRUMP TAJ MAHAL CASINO RESORT marks.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response.

FINDINGS

Since 1984, Complainant has used the TRUMP, TRUMP CASINO and TRUMP TAJ MAHAL CASINO RESORT marks in commerce in connection with casino and entertainment services.  Complainant has invested millions of dollars into promoting the TRUMP marks and building reputation and goodwill in the services provided under the marks.  The marks have been registered in the United States with the Patent and Trademark Office, and in addition, Complainant maintains numerous other marks including the word TRUMP to designate services ranging from casinos to golfing.

Complainant also has a significant presence over the Internet.  Complainant operates several websites incorporating its various marks including: <trump.com>, <trumptaj.com>, <trumpplaza.com>, and <trumpmarina.com>.  Through Complainant's longstanding use of the TRUMP mark in domain names and Web addresses the public has come to expect that domain names incorporating the TRUMP mark belong to the Complainant.

Respondent registered the disputed domain names on June 18, 2000.  Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant.  Respondent has not developed a website at any of the disputed domain names.

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, through registration and use has established that it has rights in the TRUMP, TRUMP CASINO, and TRUMP TAJ MAHAL CASINO RESORT marks.  Furthermore, Respondent's <trumpcasinoscentral.com>, <trumpcasinosonline.com>, and  <trumptajcentral.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks because they incorporate the entirety of Complainant's marks and merely add the generic terms "central" and "online".  The addition of generic terms does not create a mark capable of defeating a claim of confusing similarity.  See Broadcom Corp. v. Domain Depot, FA 96854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2001) (finding the <broadcomonline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BROADCOM mark); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd.  v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the Complainant combined with a generic word or term).

Furthermore, the addition of a top-level indicator such as ".com" or ".net" does create distinctive mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity.  See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entm't Corp., [1999] USCA9 225; 174 F.3d 1036, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999) (differences between the domain name "moviebuff.com" and the mark "MovieBuff" are inconsequential).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has failed to come forward with a Response and therefore it is presumed that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).

Furthermore, when Respondent fails to submit a Response the Panel is permitted to make all inferences in favor of Complainant.  See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint”).

There is no evidence on the record, and Respondent has not come forward to establish that it is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the <twilight-zone.net> domain name since Complainant had been using the TWILIGHT ZONE mark since 1959).

There is no evidence, and Respondent does not proffer evidence, that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name.  See Body Shop Int’l PLC v. CPIC NET & Hussain, D2000-1214 (WIPO Nov. 26, 2000) (finding “that on the evidence provided by the Complainant and in the absence of any submissions from the Respondents, that the Complainant has established that (i) the Respondents are not using and have not used, or are not demonstrating and have not demonstrated, an intent to use the said domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) the Respondents are not and have not been commonly known by the said domain name; and (iii) the Respondents are not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the said domain name, without intending to mislead and divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant’s THE BODY SHOP trademark and service mark”).

Furthermore, Respondent has failed to establish a website at any of the disputed domain names even though it has owned them for over a year.  Respondent's passive holding of the domain name demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interests.  See Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enter., Inc., D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that failure to provide a product or service or develop the site demonstrates that Respondents have not established any rights or legitimate interests in said domain name); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. Sandhu, FA 96261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that no rights or legitimate interest can be found when Respondent fails to use disputed domain names in any way).

Moreover, based on the fame of Complainant's TRUMP marks it would be very difficult for Respondent to show that it had rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  Any use by Respondent of the domain names, confusingly similar to Complainant's famous mark, would be an opportunistic attempt to attract customer's via Complainant's famous mark.  See Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where one “would be hard pressed to find a person who may show a right or legitimate interest” in a domain name containing Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE trademark).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4 (a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The <trumpcasinoscentral.com>, <trumpcasinosonline.com>, and

<trumptajcentral.com>  domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark and the Internet user will likely believe that there is an affiliation between Respondent and Complainant.  Registration of the confusingly similar domain names is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”).

Furthermore, because of the famous and distinctive nature of Complainant's TRUMP marks, Respondent is thought to have been on notice of the existence of Complainant's mark at the time Respondent registered the infringing <trumpcasinoscentral.com>, <trumpcasinosonline.com>, and <trumptajcentral.com> domain names. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Victoria's Secret et al v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001) (finding that, in light of the notoriety of Complainants' famous marks, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the BODY BY VICTORIA marks at the time she registered the disputed domain name and such knowledge constitutes bad faith).

Respondent's registration and passive holding of the disputed domain names supports a finding of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).   See Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the Respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain names <trumpcasinoscentral.com>, <trumpcasinosonline.com>, and <trumptajcentral.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated: January 23, 2002

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/98.html