In a recent domain name dispute over the domain, www.CaesarsEntertainment.com, a single member Panel denied a request to transfer, mainly on procedural grounds. Caesars World, Inc. v. P.T.Complex Co.,Ltd (Nat. Arb. Forum FA1446942, 7, 2012). Complainant Casears World, Inc. is the owner of the well known Caesars Palace Casino in Las Vegas. Complainant operates a domain at www.CaesarsPalace.com. Complainant also has long standing rights to a trademark CAESARS dating back to 1964 (Reg. 763,255) Complainant also claims rights to a Thailand Trademark Registration No. Kor84377 from 1988. Respondent operates a well-known massage parlor in Thailand and claims use of the name CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT since 1997. The disputed domain was registered on May 28, 2001.
The parties are not strangers to each other when it comes to legal battles. The parties engaged each other in disputes with The Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court in Thailand (hereinafter the IP and IT Court). Complainant claims that the court cancelled Respondents registrations to two infringing design marks, including a finding of bad faith against Respondent. Respondent claims that Complainant’s attempt to challenge the CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT mark was denied by the IP and IT Court. Then in 2008 Complainant filed a trademark action in Thailand against respondent. An initial decision was rendered in January 2012. Both parties have appealed the decision and a stay was entered regarding the initial decision..
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.”
Under that concept the Panel made the following observations and findings:
The UDRP Panels are dependant on the completeness and accuracy of the evidence and information supplied by the parties. A complainant must certify in its complaint inter alia that “[…] the information is to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge complete and accurate […]”, See the Rules 3 (b)(xiv). The Complainant of this case has made such a certification. The Panel finds that the Complainant, already having appealed the decision of the IP and IT Court, had knowledge of the indefinite status of the Court’s decision when filing the Complaint. See Respondent’s Annexes 3-4. The Panel also finds that the Complainant of this case, despite this knowledge, has omitted to inform the Panel that the IP and IT Court’s decision cited and adduced had not obtained final force and effect. If the judgment of the referred litigation in Thailand would have been final, it may have presented decisive reasons for the Panel. Therefore, and notwithstanding its certification, the Complainant has in its Complaint not presented complete and accurate information. The Panel finds this acting of the Complainant in itself a reason to deny the Complaint.
As a result, the Panel terminated the dispute without a decision on the merits of the case.