Complainant is Caesars License Company, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States.
Respondent is WhoisSecure, United States / Ehiz Ludda, Ehiz IT Consultant, Nigeria.1 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 29, 2019. On July 30, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 31, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 2, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 22, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 26, 2019.
The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on August 27, 2019. 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. 4. Factual Background
Complainant is a company organized under the laws of the United States that, through affiliated companies, is the owner and the operator of the world famous “Caesars Palace” hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registered owner of numerous trademarks worldwide relating to the designation “Caesars”, including the following with protection for the United States:
- Word mark CAESARS, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), registration number: 954,684, registration date: March 6, 1973, status: active;
- Word mark CAESARS, USPTO, registration number: 954,637, registration date: March 6, 1973, status: active.
Complainant, furthermore, owns a number of domain names including and , both of which redirect to Complainant’s official website as “www.” where Complainant promotes its “Caesars Palace” hotel as well as related products and services, including
career-related information.
Respondent, according to the WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, is a resident of Nigeria who registered the disputed domain name on November 12, 2018. Complainant has provided evidence that at some point before the filing of this Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to an active website at “www.” which copied substantial elements from Complainant’s official website at “www.”, including Complainant’s CAESARS trademark as well as photos and text elements focusing on career-related information.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAESARS trademark, as it incorporates the latter in full, merely followed by the generic term “career”. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or consented to Respondent’s registration and use of domain names incorporating Complainant’s CAESARS trademark, (2) Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and (3) Respondent has not used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but rather to host a fraudulent website which purports to be the online source for career-related information from Complainant itself. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since the fraudulent website to which the disputed domain name redirected prominently displayed e.g. Complainant’s famous CAESARS trademark, which at worst was used to steal Internet users’ personal or company information and to defraud visitors by purporting to offer employment opportunities with Complainant which did not actually exist. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, the Panel may draw such inferences as are appropriate from Respondent’s failure to submit a Response. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CAESARS trademark in which Complainant has rights.
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s CAESARS trademark in its entirety. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see e.g., PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS Computer Industry (a/k/a EMS),WIPO Case No. D2003-0696). Moreover, it has been held in many UDRP decisions and has become a consensus view among UDRP panels (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8), that the addition of another term (whether e.g., descriptive or geographic) to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient, by itself, to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP. Accordingly, the addition of the descriptive term “career” does not dispel the confusing similarity arising from the incorporation of Complainant’s CAESARS trademark in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, Complainant has established the first element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel is further convinced on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed contentions that Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor can it be found that Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof without intent for commercial gain.
Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s CAESARS trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the term “Caesars”. To the contrary, Respondent apparently copied substantial elements from Complainant’s official website at “www.”, including Complainant’s CAESARS trademark as well as photos and text elements focusing on career-related information for purposes of setting up its own website under the disputed domain name, which is highly likely to confuse Internet users in a fraudulent manner into believing that Respondent’s website is an official website run by Complainant itself. Such use of the disputed domain name neither qualifies as bona fide nor as legitimate noncommercial or fair.
Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Now, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating the contrary (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). Given that Respondent has not submitted a Response, it has not met that burden.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finally holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Resolving the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAESARS trademark, to a website that copied substantial elements from Complainant’s official website at “www.”, including Complainant’s CAESARS trademark as well as photos and text elements focusing on career-related information, is a clear indication that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s CAESARS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
In this context, the Panel has also noted that Respondent not only made use of a WhoIs privacy service in order to conceal its true identity, but also provided fault or incomplete contact information in the WhoIs register for the disputed domain name since, according to the email correspondence between the Center and the postal courier DHL, the Written Notice dated August 2, 2019, could not be delivered. These facts at least throw a light on Respondent’s behavior which supports the Panel’s bad faith finding.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant has also satisfied the third element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.
Stephanie G. Hartung
Sole Panelist
Date: September 2, 2019
1 It is evident from the case file that WhoisSecure, United States, is a privacy protection service and that Ehiz Ludda, Ehiz IT Consultant, Nigeria, is the underlying registrant of the disputed domain name. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated, the term “Respondent” is used by the Panel in the case at hand to refer to the latter underlying registrant only.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy