Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0293.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:42:49+00:00

Document:
Caesars Entertainment, Inc. f/k/a Park Place Entertainment Corporation v.�Ad�Dreamer Inc.
The Complainant is Caesars Entertainment, Inc. f/k/a Park Place Entertainment Corporation, Las Vegas, Nevada United States of America, represented by Stephen�W.�Feingold, Esq. of the law firm Pitney�Hardin�LLP, United�States�of�America.
The Respondent is Ad Dreamer Inc., Lynden, Washington, United�States�of�America.
The disputed domain names are <flamingoclubhr.com> and <flamingoclubvip.com>, which are registered with Go Daddy Software (sometimes hereinafter referred to as “Registrar”).
The Complainant filed its Complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on March�21,�2005, via e-mail transmission. A hard copy of the Complaint was received by the Center on March�23,�2005. On the same date that the Center received the hard copy, it transmitted by e-mail to the Registrar a request for verification in connection with the domain names at issue. That evening, Go Daddy Software transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the Registrant and providing identification information for the administrative and technical contacts. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the�“Policy”), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March�29,�2005. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph�5(a), the due date for Response was April�18,�2005. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April�20,�2005.
The Center appointed Craig Edward Stein as the sole panelist in this matter on April�29,�2005. 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.
Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph�10(c), on May�13,�2005, due to exceptional circumstances, the Panel re-set the decision date to May�20,�2005. For similar reasons, the Panel subsequently established the decision deadline for May�22,�2005, and the decision was transmitted in accordance with this final schedule.
The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (referred to interchangeably as “CEI”, “Caesars”, or “Complainant”), a Delaware corporation1 doing business in Las Vegas, Nevada. Among its various enterprises2, Complainant provides gaming, hotel, and entertainment services through its operation of the legendary FLAMINGO casinos and hotels, the most famous of which is located in the City of Las Vegas (the “Casino”, the “Hotel and Casino” or “The Flamingo”). CEI and its predecessors in interest have had a colorful history, which has been briefly recounted by certain documents submitted in the record, including the Affidavit of Melissa Steinberg.3 Because a party’s notoriety can sometimes be a factor in determining the various legal interests that must be established pursuant to the Rules, paragraph�4(a)(i) through (iii), the circumstances concerning the establishment of the Casino and other highlights of Complainant’s past require a brief recitation.
The Casino was first opened in December 1946, by Benjamin “Bugsy” Seigel, the first of Complainant’s predecessors in interest. Mr. Seigel is widely credited with creating what is now known worldwide as the famous Las Vegas Strip. Complainant recounts in its submissions that Mr.�Seigel supposedly named the Casino after his girlfriend, Virginia Hill, “who had red hair and long legs”,4 and who, thus apparently evoked, for Mr.�Seigel, the image of a flamingo. The Casino - situated several miles from downtown Las Vegas on a street that was concurrently named “Flamingo Drive” - introduced European-style gaming to the United States with an elegant aura featuring men in tuxedos and women in evening gowns. The opening of the Casino was attended by many Hollywood stars of the day, such as Jimmy Durante, Tommy�Wonder, Eddie�Jackson and Rose�Marie. The legend of The Flamingo continued to grow when, only months after its opening, Bugsy�Seigel was murdered.
In the more than 50 years since Complainant’s Casino opened, its recognition around the world was spread through various, high-profile methods. One such technique was being featured as a named location in movies whose cast included popular performers of the period, such as “Viva Las Vegas”, starring Elvis Presley, and “The Las�Vegas Story”, starring Jane Russell and Vincent Price. In addition, the Casino has hosted shows by major talents including Lena Home, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Jerry Lewis, Judy Garland, Dinah Shore, Burl Ives, Steve Allen, Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra, and Duke Ellington. Indeed, at the time the Complaint in this proceeding was filed, Gladys Knight was appearing at the Casino as the headline entertainer.5 In 1991, the plot of the movie “Bugsy”, which featured Warren Beatty in the title role and Annette Bening, who played the part of Virginia Hill -- Mr. Seigel’s girlfriend (and the alleged inspiration for selecting the name “Flamingo”), revolved around the legend surrounding the founding of the Hotel and Casino.
Presently, CEI’s Hotel and Casino sits on the intersection of Flamingo and Las Vegas Boulevards in Las Vegas, Nevada, which sees approximately 50,000 people pass by every day. Each year, over one million people stay overnight at The Flamingo’s hotel accommodations. Millions more visit The Flamingo each year without staying overnight. After undergoing renovations in 1996 that expanded its capacity to 3,500�hotel rooms, The Flamingo was the largest hotel in the world. At the time it filed the Complaint in this proceeding, The Flamingo was the tenth largest hotel in the world, and the fifth largest in Las Vegas.
Over the past few years alone, Caesar’s has spent millions of dollars on advertising its hotels and casinos. In 2002, it expended approximately $4,000,000; in 2003, CEI�spent roughly $7,000,000; and in 2004, Complainant paid advertisers nearly�$5,000,000.
CEI owns several U.S. Patent and Trademark Office registrations for the marks FLAMINGO, FLAMINGO (Stylized), FLAMINGO PLAYERS CLUB and FLAMINGO LAS VEGAS (the “Marks”), which are used to designate and promote Complainant’s services. The Marks are firmly associated with CEI. Caesar’s also owns registrations for the FLAMINGO marks in Egypt and Greece. Since 1946, CEI, (or its predecessors in interest) has been using the FLAMINGO name and mark in brochures, pamphlets, advertisements, and on its websites.
In addition, Complainant owns several registrations for its FLAMINGO mark in other countries, as shown in this second table.
Similarly, CEI has had a presence on the Internet in the form of a website devoted to The Flamingo in Las Vegas at <lv-flamingo.com> since August�3,�2000. In addition, on the same day that its Las Vegas Flamingo website became active, the Complainant also launched a second website devoted to its Laughlin Flamingo Hotel and Casino at <laughlinflamingo.com>. Both websites have continuously displayed the FLAMINGO Mark since their respective inceptions. These two websites have also attracted significant interest from Internet users. Thus, from January�2003 through December�2003, there were approximately 2,100,000 visits to Complainant’s�<lv-flamingo.com> website and about 3,000,000 hits in 2004. From January 2003 through December 2003, Complainant’s <laughlinflamingo.com> website experienced approximately 425,000 hits. In 2004, that number increased to over 445,000.
The Respondent registered both challenged domain names on April�10,�2004. When it learned of the existence of the two domain names in dispute, Complainant sent a demand letter to Respondent via United Parcel Service (“UPS”) on June�29,�2004, and e-mail on June�30,�2004. The letter sought to compel Respondent to transfer the challenged domain names to CEI.
i just checked this email we have no idea regarding the copy trademark of this domains since there is an online casino that we were promoting a website called “flamingoclub.com” that is why we have now several mirror site. We would be more than happy to give you those domain and have no problem with that and are familiar witht the whole system of icann so you do not need to go there. Could you please kindly remit 29.95 for each domain and they are all yours.
After reviewing Mr. Kottabi’s e-mail message, Complainant initiated a series of communications to Mr. Kottabi over the next several months in an effort to effect the transfer on the terms he proposed. These messages were transmitted via both e-mail and UPS. Communications were sent to all available addresses on July�13,�2004; July�15,�2004; July�20,�2004; and December�9,�2004. Significantly, UPS was never able to deliver any package that Complainant sent to Respondent at the sole physical address Respondent had provided, which is the address contained on the WHOIS database.. The reason for the failure, as noted by UPS, was that “Receiver Moved”. Finally, on January�14,�2005, Complainant sent its last email to Respondent insisting upon the immediate transfer of the domains names in dispute, but withdrawing its offer to pay any compensation. Respondent never replied and thereafter, Complainant initiated these proceedings.
Pursuant to both documents contained in the case file, one of which was allegedly generated by Respondent’s only known representative, Mr. Kottabi, and the Rules, paragraph�14(b), the Panel has drawn appropriate negative inferences from Respondent’s default and applied them to this portion of its factual findings.
Accordingly, the Panelist’s investigation was specifically tailored to address only those inconsistencies that became apparent from comparing the evidence contained in the case file and information that can be derived from Respondent’s website.
(xiv) The above-described events apparently occurred in the Province of Ontario, Canada.
All of the above-information leads to the following inescapable conclusions. The challenged domain name <flamingoclubvip.com> directs users to an on-line gaming site named “Flamingo Club Online Casino” which is located at a website with the domain name <flamingoclub.com>14. This Respondent is almost certainly a member of an affiliate program promoted by the owners of the Flamingo Club online gaming site. As described in the materials submitted by the Complainant, this particular program provides Respondent a fee each time a visitor arrives at the on-line “casino” via the Respondent’s web page. This transfer is accomplished by means of click-through buttons, links and banners. Moreover, “casino” on-line affiliate programs contain an additional incentive. Should the user who arrived by means of the website actually gamble, and “lose”, the referring website (“affiliate”) shares in a portion of the income directly attributable to the specific user. Thus, the more internet “traffic” that a referrer/affiliate can generate, the higher the monies it stands to be paid.
(a) The Complainant’s above-listed registered marks are incontestable.
(b) Because of Complainant’s efforts, Complainant’s Marks have gained wide recognition and have become very well known.
(c) All of Complainant’s marks were registered long before Respondent’s registration of the challenged domain names.
(d) The <flamingoclubvip.com> and <flamingoclubhr.com> domain names simply inserts the initials “VIP” or “HR” after the words “flamingo” and “club”. Since the term “VIP” is commonly understood in the gaming industry to mean “Very Important Person”, and the term “‘HR” stands for “High Roller”, it is obvious that these initials relate to gambling and casinos. Therefore, “Flamingo Club VIP” and “Flamingo Club HR” create the same commercial impression as CEI’s “Flamingo” trademarks.
(e) Combining a generic word with the Complainant’s registered mark does not circumvent the Complainant’s rights in the mark nor does it avoid making the domain name in dispute confusingly similar.
(f) Internet users are likely to believe that the domain names Respondent has registered are related to, associated with, or authorized by Complainant. Indeed, this was precisely why Respondent chose the domain names that are now in dispute.
(g) The fame and distinctiveness of the Complainant’s Flamingo Marks has been recognized in previous WIPO UDRP decisions. Most recently, in Caesars Entertainment. Inc. v. WW Processing, WIPO Case No.�D2004-0225, in transferring the domain name in question, <flamingobeachcasion.com> the Panel stated, “it is clear that as used on the Internet as part of a domain name, the term ‘Flamingo’ is identified with the Complainant”. To the same effect is the decision in Park Place Entertainment Corporation v. Anything.com, WIPO Case No. D2002-0530. In directing that the domain name <flamingo.com> be transferred to CEI, the Panel stated that Complainant’s Marks are “well known in the field of hotels and casinos..”. Similarly, the Panel determined that there was “strong consumer identification of the mark with Complainant’s service business, extensive advertisement of the mark, and its continuous long use in commerce”.
(a) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names at issue.
(b) Long before Respondent registered the challenged domain names, Complainant had firmly established rights in its Marks.
(c) No other entity operates a casino under the name FLAMINGO anywhere in the world.
(d) Where, as here, Complainant’s marks and name are so well known and so widely recognized, and have been used in connection with gaming services for so many years, there can be no legitimate use by Respondent. For instance, in Nike Inc. v. B.B. de Boer, WIPO Case No. D2000-1397, the Panel concluded that the trademark NIKE was so well-known that it was difficult to comprehend how the Respondent could not have been aware of its existence.
(e) Furthermore, there is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent that would give rise to any license, permission, or authorization by which Respondent could own or use the disputed domain names.
(f) Respondent is not making legitimate, non-commercial use of the challenged domain names. Indeed, the only use to which the names have been associated has been from diverting users to on-line gaming sites and casinos to the Respondent’s profit.
(b) While Complainant does not operate any on-line casinos (as they are illegal in the United States), Complainant is aware that a major concern for consumers interested in such activity is integrity of the website that is a portal for on-line gaming. By operating on-line gaming portals under the FLAMINGO marks, Respondent is clearly trading off the reputation of Complainant’s famous FLAMINGO properties by implying some association or connection with one of the most trusted names in the industry.
(c) The continuous use of these domain names not only allows Respondent to profit from an unauthorized use of Complainant’s trademarks, but also could even lead to inquiries from various gaming authorities and place Complainant’s gaming license at risk.
(d) Respondent has registered the domain names at issue for the sole purpose of deriving income by attracting users to an on-line gaming site. Respondent receives a fee for users it diverts to the on-line gaming and casino site.
(f) Respondent moved its physical address without updating the WHOIS database. Respondent’s email address is also different from his contact information listed on the WHOIS database. The fact that Respondent changed both its e-mail and physical addresses without updating the WHOIS database is also evidence of bad faith.
1. Paragraph�4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative, non-exclusive circumstances, which, if demonstrated by the Complainant, for the purposes of paragraph�4(a)(iii) shall be deemed evidence of a Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of a challenged domain name.
2. Paragraph�4(c) of the Policy sets out three descriptive, non-exclusive situations, any one of which, if proved by a Respondent, shall be considered as evidence of the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for the purpose of paragraph�4(a)(ii).
Complainant more than meets its burden of proof with regard to meeting the test set forth in paragraph�4(a)(i). CEI has at least five registered trademarks in the United States and eight in three other countries which contain the word “flamingo” and other information that identifies the Marks with the gaming, entertainment, and leisure industries, as well as the landmark “Flamingo Hotel and Casino” in Las Vegas.
Furthermore, this Complainant has previously demonstrated to the satisfaction of other WIPO Panels that the domain names <flamingo.com>15 and <flamingobeachcasino.com>16 were either identical or confusingly similar to its various registered marks. So too here, the addition of the term “club” to the Flamingo Mark followed by either the initials “vip” or “hr”, when viewed in the context of gaming industry parlance, strongly supports Complainant’s interpretation of the challenged domain names. Accordingly, the Panel agrees with CEI’s position that both domain names which are in dispute are most certainly confusingly similar to the Flamingo registered marks.
(4) Complainant had rights to the registered Flamingo marks prior to the registration of the two domain names in dispute.
By failing to respond in the face of Complainant’s prima facie showing on this point, there is no need to examine the possible justifications contained in paragraph�4(c) that might have provided a defense to Complainant’s challenge. Therefore, CEI has satisfied this portion of the Policy.
The final test which Complainant must meet is to prove that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith. The facts presented in this case establish both points.
At the outset, the Panel incorporates its Findings from paragraphs�6 A and 6 B of this decision which also sustain a determination of bad faith. In addition, the facts discussed in paragraphs�4 D and 4 E, in their entirety, further support Complainant’s argument. In light of these already stated conclusions, only a few brief additional comments are warranted.
First, the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent should have added to the WHOIS database its return e-mail address, which is associated with the <coasar.com> domain name and was disclosed for the first time in Mr. Kottabi’s July�13,�2005 e-mail, is well taken. So too, the street address in Lynden, Washington is also inaccurate. What is more striking, however, is what is underscored by the assorted details listed in paragraph�4E(2)b(i) through (xiv) of this decision and, to a certain extent, some of the findings contained in the Goldline case. In brief, this evidence tends to render suspect any of Respondent’s representations concerning its identity. In point of fact, obscuring the identity of the true Registrant of its domain names is one of the few consistencies that can be attributed to this Respondent.
The next comment concerns the question that logically follows from the intentional confusion the Respondent generates to guard against the disclosure of its identity, i.e., who (or what) is the Respondent? However, because of the nature of these proceedings, that inquiry need not be answered. It is enough that the Panel is able to ascertain that the appropriate notices and other documents were sent to the contacts that the Registrant supplied the Registrar for inclusion in the WHOIS database. Thus, such issues as piercing corporate veils or finding an individual or other entity liable in the stead of a named party are simply not matters that need to be made in the context of UDRP proceedings. Nevertheless, there are occasions, such as the situation presented here, where certain facts that in another forum might lead to other legal consequences, must still be reviewed to ascertain the true nature of a domain name’s registration and use.
The third point concerns Respondent’s passive holding of the <flamingoclubhr.com> domain name. As succinctly stated in the WIPO Decision Overview, Section 3.2.
Here, all four issues cited in the above analysis apply. The Complainant’s trademark is not only “well-known”; it is almost synonymous with the word “casino”. So too, there has been no formal response to the Complaint, and the only communication in this record from Respondent, Mr. Kottabi’s e-mail, seems to concede that this domain name should be transferred as well. In addition, the Respondent, as discussed above in this section, has made several misrepresentations in an effort to conceal its identity. Similarly, the Panel is at a loss to explain in what manner the domain names could be put to a good faith use. Thus, a finding of bad faith as to the registration and use of the passively held domain name <flamingoclubhr.com> is amply supported by this record.
The final observation relates to the severity of Respondent’s conduct. In this case, Respondent goes far beyond the type of abusive practice that has been condemned in such decisions as in Compagnie G�n�rale des Etablissements Michelin CGEM - Michelin & Cie, Michelin Recherche et Technique S.A. v. Horoshiy Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2004-0752 (“use of domain names containing … Complainants’ famous trademark …to capture … Complainants’ customers who are seeking the Complainants’ … services, and to re-direct them to other websites” and thereby garner “click-through” revenue is bad faith use).
No doubt, here the challenged domain names were specifically designed to confuse, capture, and divert internet users away from Complainant’s websites, and then direct this traffic to a site for which Respondent is an “affiliate”. Similarly, there can be no question but that the purpose underlying Respondent’s entire scheme is to derive income at the expense of Complainant. But here, there is more. As noted by Complainant, on-line gambling is illegal in the United States. Moreover, the gaming business in which Complainant is a legitimate participant is a highly regulated industry. Thus, trading off of Complainant’s registered trademarks and engendering public confusion as to Complainant’s involvement in an activity that is clearly against the law of the jurisdiction where Complainant conducts its business poses an even more nefarious threat as it could place at risk the very governmental licenses that allows Complainant to conduct business. In short, it is one thing to lose income as a result of an abusive domain name registration; it is quite a different matter when, as here, a Complainant’s ability to operate altogether is put in jeopardy.
In light of these conclusions, the Panel determines that both challenged domain names were registered and utilized in bad faith. Thus, Complainant has satisfied the last prong of paragraph�4(a) of the Policy.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs�4(i) of the Policy and 15�of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names <flamingoclubhr.com> and <flamingoclubvip.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
1 The case file contains a copy of a Certificate of Amendment to Complainant’s Certificate of Incorporation that CEI filed on January�5,�2004 with the State of Delaware’s Secretary of State, Division of Corporations. This document evidences the change in Complainant’s corporate name from Park Place Entertainment Corporation to Caesar’s Entertainment, Inc.
2 For example, Caesar’s also provides hotel, gaming, entertainment, and shopping arcade services through its operation of the Flamingo Laughlin Hotel in Laughlin, Nevada. In the past CEI also operated a hotel named “The Flamingo” in Reno, Nevada.
3 Ms. Steinberg is Complainant’s Vice President of Marketing. The Panel notes that the facts set forth in this section of its Administrative Decision are derived from a review of the full record, which includes the unrebutted allegations contained in the Complaint. These allegations are amply supported by a compendium of attached exhibits.
4 Steinberg Affidavit at paragraph�2.
5 Ms. Horne’s appearance is also confirmed by information contained on the website that Complainant maintains for The Flamingo.
6 Ms. Dominus is an attorney who, at the time of this e-mail exchange, represented Complainant.
8 Here, the matters relied upon are limited to certain factual findings that relate to the type of business activities the same party previously has been found to conduct in the past. Of course, such facts may eventually lead to a legal determination that a particular party has prevailed under one of the three tests required by paragraph�4(a) of the Policy. This procedure is similar to that adopted by WIPO Panels when determining whether a party’s “bad faith”, as that term is used in paragraph�4(a)(iii), is established by showing “a pattern of conduct … [through]multiple UDRP cases with similar fact situations or a single case where the respondent has registered multiple domain names which are similar to known trademarks”. WIPO Decision Overview, Section 3.3. Thus, in accordance with paragraph�15(a) of the Rules, the Complainant is still required to carry its burden of proof with regard to each element of paragraph�4(a) of the Policy.
9 The Panel is aware that in this matter the person identified as Mr. Kottabi spells his name with two “t”s, while in the Goldline case; the spelling of this surname contained only one “t”. However, in light of the many similarities and other connections between the facts as recited in the Goldline decision, this record and other matters revealed after a review of the Respondent’s website to which one of the challenged domain names resolves, there can be no other conclusion that the individuals in both cases are the same person. Thus, unless quoted directly from the text of the Panel decision, here the spelling with two “t”s will be employed.
10 The Panelist described the demand as “disproportionate, if not extortionate”.
11 This zip code is designated by the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) for Dover, Delaware, not Lynden, Washington. See USPS website at http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/citytown.jsp.
12 Notwithstanding the decision in Goldline, two of the listed links include one for “Goldline Sluts” and another for “goldlineslots”.
14 The <flamingoclubhr.com> domain name is inactive. That fact, however, does not prevent a finding that it was registered and used in bad faith. See Discussion at paragraph�6 C of this decision.
15 Caesars Entertainment, Inc. v. WW Processing, WIPO Case No. D2004-0225.
16 Park Place Entertainment Corporation v. Anything.com, WIPO Case No. D2002-0530.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.