Goldenhollywood.com + 4 more domains

The timeline behind goldenhollywood.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION Hollywood Casino Corporation v Advanced Media Group, dominicana Claim Number: FA0102000096704 PARTIES Complainant is Hollywood Casino Corporation, Dallas, TX, USA ("Complainant") represented by Arthur H. Seidel, Esq. Respondent is Advanced Media Group, dominicana, Santo Domingo, DO ("Respondent"). REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <goldenhollywood.com>, <goldenhollywood.net>, <goldenhollywoodcasino.com>, <golden-hollywood.com>, and <hollywoodtelegraph.com> registered with Network Solutions, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 22, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 23, 2001. On February 26, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <goldenhollywood.com>, <goldenhollywood.net>, <goldenhollywoodcasino.com>, <golden-hollywood.com>, and <hollywoodtelegraph.com> are registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 February 27, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 19, 2000 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@goldenhollywood.com, postmaster@goldenhollywood.net, postmaster@goldenhollywoodcasino.com, postmaster@golden-hollywood.com, and postmaster@hollywoodtelegraph.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 April 2, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Carolyn Marks Johnson 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 Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant asserts that The domain names in issue are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names containing Complainant’s marks, and The domain names were registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent, as noted above, did not submit a Response. FINDINGS Complainant’s casino gaming facilities operating under the HOLLYWOOD CASINO mark feature a Hollywood theme, including the use of real movie memorabilia from the Golden-era of Hollywood. Complainant is the owner of casinos, which use the service and trade name HOLLYWOOD CASINO, and offer gaming, dining, bar services, and entertainment. Complainant’s Illinois casino location has been open to the public and operational since June 17, 1993. Complainant’s Mississippi location has been open to the public and operational since August 8, 1994. Complainant’s Louisiana location began operations in December of 2000. Complainant uses the web site <hollywoodcasino.com> for its online web site location. Complainant also owns the domain names <hollywoodcasinos.com>, <hollywood-casino.com>, <hollywood-casino.net>, <hollywoocasino.com>, <hollywoodcasino.net>, <casinohollywood.com>, <hollywoodcomps.com>, <hollywoodcasinotunica.com>, <hollywoodcasinoaurora.com>, and <hollywoodcasinoshreveport.com>. Complainant owns the following registered trademarks, which were registered as early as August 9, 1994. Trademark Registration No. Services 1,849,650 "HOLLYWOOD CASINO and Design" casino services 1,851,759 "HOLLYWOOD CASINO" casino services 1,903,858 "HOLLYWOOD CASINO" hotel services 1,949,319 "HOLLYWOOD CASINO Stylized" hotel services 2,268,074 "HOLLYWOOD CASINO and Design" casinos, restaurant and bar services, and hotel services 2,256,306 "HOLLYWOOD CASINO and Design" casinos, restaurant and bar services, and hotel services 2,256,307 "HOLLYWOOD CASINO and Design" casinos, restaurant and bar services, and hotel services 2,256,308 "HOLLYWOOD CASINO and Design" casinos, restaurant and bar services, and hotel services The records indicate that Respondent registered the domain names in issue on July 8, 1998. Respondent formerly offered online casino gaming at the domain names in question. Currently, there is no web site in association with any of the 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 Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 Complainant has rights; (2) 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 to and/or Confusingly Similar Respondent’s domain name, <goldenhollywoodcasino.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, because the domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s mark and merely adds a descriptive term. See Westfield Corporation, Inc. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding <westfieldshipping.com> confusingly similar because WESTFIELD mark was dominant element); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that "[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word…nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY" and thus Policy 4(a)(i) is satisfied). In reviewing this domain name dispute, the Panel considered that Respondent may well have had some basis for claiming that <goldenhollywood.com>, <goldenhollywood.net>, <golden-hollywood.com>, and <hollywoodtelegraph.com> are sufficiently distinguished so as not to be identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Had Respondent presented some explanation as to the origin or source for "golden" and the use that Respondent has made of these domain names, the Panel may have been permitted to hold in a different manner as to these domain names. Without a response, however, the Panel is permitted to take as true, Complainant’s allegations and complaints as to all five of the domain names in issue. The Panel finds the domain names in issue are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Policy 4(a)(i). Rights to or Legitimate Interests Complainant has established its rights to or legitimate interests in the marks contained within the domain names in issue. Respondent has not. Respondent did not provide the Panel with information about current web sites operating in association with the domain names and has not offered any evidence of any future legitimate business plan for the domain names. See American Home Prod. Corp. v. Malgioglio, D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <solgarvitamins.com> where Respondent merely passively held the domain name); see also Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent failed to submit a response to the Complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question). Respondent is also not commonly known by any of the domain names in issue; Respondent is known as Advanced Media Group, dominicana. 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). Respondent’s former use of the domain names as portals for an online casino was not a bona fide offering of goods, because the services were confusingly similar to Complainant’s gambling services. See Société des Bains de Mer v. International Lotteries, D2000-1326 (WIPO Jan. 8, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent used the domain names <casinomontecarlo.com> and <montecarlocasinos.com> in connection with an on-line gambling web site). In reviewing this aspect of this domain name dispute as well, the Panel considered that Respondent may have shown the Panel some basis for claiming that <goldenhollywood.com>, <goldenhollywood.net>, <golden-hollywood.com>, and <hollywoodtelegraph.com> are sufficiently distinguished so as not to be identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Had Respondent presented some explanation as to the origin or source for "golden" and/or the use given to these domain names, the Panel may have been permitted to hold in a different manner as to the four domain names that contain a generic word in addition to Complainant’s mark. Without that response, however, we take as true, Complainant’s allegations and complaints as to all five of the domain names in issue. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names in question that contain Complainant’s mark. Policy 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent has exhibited bad faith by misleading consumers who access Respondent’s online casino gambling web site by using domain names confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Hollywood Casino Corp. v. Mike, FA 96182 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2001) (finding bad faith in registration and use, because Respondent created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s casino service mark by offering online gambling at a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark). This is evidence of bad faith. Policy 4(a)(iii). In reviewing the requirement that Complainant establish that Respondent has acted in bad faith, the Panel also considered that Respondent may well have had some basis for claiming a bona fide right to four of the domain names, <goldenhollywood.com>, <goldenhollywood.net>, <golden-hollywood.com>, and <hollywoodtelegraph.com> and that Respondent might have been able to show that Respondent’s use of them has not been in bad faith. Had Respondent presented some explanation as to the origin or source for "golden" and the use of these domain names, the Panel may have been permitted to hold in a different manner as to these domain names. Without that response, however, we take as true, Complainant’s allegations and complaints as to all five of the domain names that were submitted in a group in this domain name dispute. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain names in issue in bad faith. Policy 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the Panel that the requested relief be granted. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is Ordered that <goldenhollywood.com>, <goldenhollywood.net>, <goldenhollywoodcasino.com>, <golden-hollywood.com>, and <hollywoodtelegraph.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson Retired Judge Arbitrator Dated: April 13, 2001 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.