Westmore · UDRP DecisionCaesarasia.club
The Panel ordered transfer of <caesarasia.club>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CAESARS mark because it omitted only the final “s” and added “asia.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and its website reproduced the Complainant’s branding while purporting to offer gambling and casino games. The Panel found registration and use in bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The timeline behind caesarasia.club
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind caesarasia.club — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates a strong impersonation case in which a close misspelling of a well-known mark was combined with a geographic term, copied branding, related commercial services, and promotional material invoking the trademark owner’s public-company identity. The website content was central not only to rights or legitimate interests but also to proving actual knowledge and intentional commercial confusion.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Caesars License Company, LLC v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / XiDong Feng Case No. D2018-0674 1. The Parties The Complainant is Caesars License Company, LLC of Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States / XiDong Feng of Chongqing, Sichuan, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <caesarasia.club> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 27, 2018. On March 27, 2018, the Center transmitted by e-mail to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 28, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by e-mail to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an e-mail communication to the Complainant on March 29, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 30, 2018. 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 6, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 26, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 27, 2018. The Center appointed Sok Ling MOI as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 2018. 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 The Complainant, through its affiliated companies including Caesars Entertainment Corporation (listed on NASDAQ as CZR), is the owner and operator of Caesars Palace casino hotel located in Las Vegas of Nevada as well as other Caesars branded casino and casino hotels located in Atlantic City of New Jersey, Ontario of Canada and Cairo of Egypt. Opened on August 5, 1966, Caesars Palace receives an average of 1.5 million hotel guests every year, with millions more visiting its casino, dining at its restaurants and cafes, or watching a show at its theatre. The Complainant and its affiliated companies operate the websites at the domain names <caesars.com>, <caesarspalace.com> and <caesarsentertainment.cn>. The Complainant is the owner of the CAESARS, CAESARS PALACE and CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT trade marks and associated brands, including the following trade mark registrations: Jurisdiction Mark Registration No. Registration Date United States CAESARS PALACE 907693 February 9, 1971 United States CAESARS PALACE (stylised) 907696 February 9, 1971 United States CAESARS (stylised) 954637 March 6, 1973 United States CAESARS (stylised) 1001363 January 7, 1975 United States CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT 3021734 November 29, 2005 United States CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT & laurel design 3944625 April 12, 2011 China CAESARS 5360758 July 28, 2009 China CAESARS 5398759 October 7, 2009 China CAESARS 6574995 August 14, 2010 China CAESARS 777388 February 7, 1995 China CAESARS 5360759 October 21, 2009 China CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT & laurel design 6731109 August 28, 2010 China CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT & laurel design 6731110 April 14, 2011 China CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT & laurel design 13747107 July 7, 2015 The disputed domain name was registered on January 20, 2018. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a website which reproduced the Complainant’s CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT & laurel design mark and logo and purportedly offers a variety of online gambling and casino games including “Slot Machine Games” and “Lottery Games”. Prominently displayed at the top of the website is the name “凯撒娱乐集团” which may be translated as “Caesars Entertainment Group”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trade mark CAESARS, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests for the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order for the disputed domain name to be cancelled or transferred: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in CAESARS by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark CAESARS less the last letter “s”. The addition of the term “asia” does not reduce the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.club” does not impact the analysis of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark in this case. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant bears the burden of proof to establish that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, once the complainant makes a prima facie showing under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence in support of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The respondent may establish its rights in the disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following, without limitation, under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. (See Taylor Wimpey PLC, Taylor Wimpey Holdings Limited v. honghao internet foshan co, ltd , WIPO Case No. D2013-0974 .) The Complainant has confirmed that the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the CAESARS trade mark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the trade mark. There is also no evidence suggesting that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “caesar” or has acquired any trade mark rights in the term “caesar”. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent was using the disputed domain name to publish a website that appeared to pass itself off as the Complainant’s official website targeting the Chinese market. The said website reproduced the Complainant’s CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT & laurel design mark and logo and purportedly offers a variety of online gambling and casino games including “Slot Machine Games” and “Lottery Games”. Prominently displayed at the top of the website is the name “凯撒娱乐集团“ which may be translated as “Caesars Entertainment Group”. This suggests that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to mislead Internet visitors by creating an affiliation with the Complainant where there is none. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden of production thus shifts to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Since the Respondent has failed to respond, the Panel determines that the prima facie case has not been rebutted. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the disputed domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location. The Complainant’s CAESARS PALACE casino hotel has been operating since 1966, and enjoys a strong reputation worldwide and a significant online presence. The Panel accepts that as a result of its long history and the Complainant’s promotional activities, CAESARS has become a well-known mark in the casino hotel industry throughout the world. In this day and age of the Internet and advancement in information technology, the reputation of brands and trade marks transcends national borders. A cursory Internet search would have disclosed the CAESARS and CAESARS PALACE trade marks and its extensive use by the Complainant. As such, a presumption arises that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trade marks when it registered the disputed domain name. Registration of a domain name that incorporates a complainant’s long-established widely-known trade mark suggests opportunistic bad faith. There is no doubt that the Respondent was in fact aware of the Complainant’s trade mark as the disputed domain name was in fact used to publish a website that reproduced the Complainant’s CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT & laurel design mark and logo, and to purportedly offer online gambling and casino games. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, a fraudulent press release had been issued to promote the Respondent’s website. The content of the fraudulent press release, which purportedly described the business of “Caesars Entertainment (NASDAQ: CZR)” left no doubt that its purpose was to create the false impression that the Respondent’s website is associated with the Complainant. The Panel determines that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. As such, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for mala fide purposes and the Panel finds that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are applicable to the present case. Such use of the disputed domain name not only misleads the public but also causes disruption to the Complainant’s business. As such, the Panel finds that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy are also applicable to the present case. The Center was not able to reach the Respondent at the physical address and e-mail address recorded with the Registrar, which strongly suggests that the Respondent had provided false contact details at the time of registering the disputed domain name. The Panel considers this an attempt by the Respondent to conceal his identity which further suggests a lack of bona fide . The Respondent has not denied the Complainant’s allegations of bad faith. In view of the above finding that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and taking into account all the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 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 <caesarasia.club> be transferred to the Complainant. Sok Ling MOI Sole Panelist Date: May 17, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around caesarasia.club
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.