Mcsands.com

The timeline behind mcsands.com

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

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Macausands c/o macausands Claim Number: FA0806001210542 PARTIES Complainant is Las Vegas Sands Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Susan Okin Goldsmith, New Jersey, USA. Respondent is macausands c/o macausands (“Respondent”), Macau. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <mcsands.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation. 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. Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 18, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 19, 2008. On June 26, 2008, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <mcsands.com> domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation 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 June 30, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 21, 2008 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@mcsands.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 24, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <mcsands.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SANDS mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <mcsands.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <mcsands.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Las Vegas Sands Corp., provides casino, hotel, and resort services. Complainant has spent many years and hundreds of millions of dollarts to promote its goods and services under its SANDS family of marks throughout the world. Complainant has used the SANDS mark since as early as 1952. Complainant owns trademark registrations in the SANDS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,209,102 issued September 14, 1982), State Intellectual Property Office of China (“SIPO”) (Reg. No. 3,395,910 issued November 28, 2002), the Intellectual Property Department of the Macau Economic Services (Reg. No. N/10380 issued January 10, 2003), and the European Union’s Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 4503751 issued July 26, 2006). Respondent registered the <mcsands.com> domain name on May 24, 2008. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that looks identical to Complainant’s own website and invites Internet users to enter valuable personal information. 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 and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also 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.”). 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (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 and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in the SANDS mark through several trademark registrations with various worldwide trademark authorities. The Panel finds that Complainant’s evidence of these registrations is sufficient to establish rights in the SANDS mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Bin g Glu, FA 874496 (Nat Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding rights in the METLIFE mark as a result of its registration with the United States federal trademark authority). Complainant contends that Respondent’s <mcsands.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s domain name contains Complainant’s SANDS mark in its entirety and adds the letters “mc.” Complainant contends that “mc” has been recognized as one abbreviation for the country of Macao, a country where Complainant owns and operates a casino under the SANDS mark. The Panel finds that the addition of a geographic abbreviation, along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” is an insufficient means of distinguishing Respondent’s <mcsands.com> domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See InfoSpace, Inc. v. domains Asia Ventures, FA 198909 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“Internet users may believe that the website located at the <dogpileuk.com> domain name is run by a United Kingdom branch or affiliate of Complainant. . . . Consequently, the Panel finds that the geographic identifier “uk” does not significantly distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also MFI UK Ltd. v. Jones, D2003-0102 (WIPO May 8, 2003) (finding the <mfiuk.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s MFI mark because the addition of the letters “UK” were merely a common designation for the United Kingdom). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests In accordance with Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the Panel finds that Complainant has met its obligations in first making a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <mcsands.com> domain name. Accordingly, the burden is shifted to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Document Techs., Inc. v. Int’l Elec. Commc’ns Inc., D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000) (“Although Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove the presence of this element (along with the other two), once a Complainant makes out a prima facie showing, the burden of production on this factor shifts to the Respondent to rebut the showing by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.”); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”). However, Respondent has failed to submit a response to the Complaint. Therefore, the Panel may presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, but will nonetheless examine the record in consideration of the elements listed under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Collazo, FA 349074 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (finding that because Respondent failed to submit a Response, “Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments undisputed. In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations . . . unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.”). Respondent is using the <mcsands.com> domain name to operate a website that is identical in appearance and content to Complainant’s own website for the Las Vegas Sands Casino and Hotel. Moreover, Respondent’s website invites Internet users to enter in their personal information. The Panel finds that Respondent is using the <mcsands.com> domain name as part of a “phishing” scheme in order to defraud Complainant’s customers through the illicit collection of their personal information. Respondent’s use is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004) (finding that using a domain name in a fraudulent scheme to deceive Internet users into providing their credit card and personal information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding that using a domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s credit application website and attempted to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Complainant also contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or licensed to register domain names featuring Complainant’s SANDS mark. Without evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) the respondent is not a licensee of the complainant; (2) the complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede the respondent’s registration; (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the <mcsands.com> domain name to operate a website that is identical in look and content to Complainant’s own website. Moreover, it appears that Respondent is using the domain name in connection with a phishing scheme in which Respondent is attempting to defraud Internet users into divulging their valuable personal information. The Panel finds this use to be a disruption of Complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use because the respondent used the domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website and to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients); see also HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA 320379 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2004) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because it redirected Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website and was used to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s potential associates). Moreover, Respondent’s use of the <mcsands.com> domain name is likely to cause confusion among Internet users as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Respondent is trying to capitalize on this confusion by collecting personal information from Complainant’s customers and profiting through some nefarious use. The Panel finds this to be further evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using the complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see also American Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”). 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 relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mcsands.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist Dated: August 6, 2008 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

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