A UDRP was decided by a one member panel of the the National Arbitration Forum on the domain names:

highrollerdates.com

highrollerwheelweddings.com

highrollerweddingslv.com

highrollerdate.com

highrollerdatelv.com

winfreehighrollertickets.com

highrollerride.com

Awarding all of them to Caesars License Company, LLC

Eduardo Magalhães Machado, the sole Panelist seemed to be confused on the trademark at issue which is “High Roller”.

The panelist referred to the trademark as High Holler no less than 3 times in the opinion.

The panelist correct cites the High Roller trademark

“Complainant argues that it uses the trademark HIGH ROLLER in connection with its planned 550 foot tall observation wheel (alleged to be the world’s tallest) upon which consumers can gaze down upon the City of Las Vegas and outward into the desert vistas that surround the Las Vegas metropolis.

“The Complainant owns trademark registration number 4,547,907 for the trademark “HIGH HOLLER” before the USPTO with a priority date of January 31, 2011.

All of the Disputed Domain Names were registered after this date.

The Respondent is not known, nor has never been known by these disputed domain names.

The disputed domain names are used by Respondent to promote various services that compete with Complainant’s business, relate to Complainant’s business, or otherwise capitalize on the HIGH ROLLER trademark in a way that interrupts Complainant’s business unfairly, except for the domain name highrollerride.com, which is not active.

The Complainant affirms that Respondent is acting in bad faith and that Respondent is known for his cyber-piracy, such as the ongoing litigation in American federal court where a Las Vegas casino is seeking an injunction against Respondent’s use of allegedly infringing domain names.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has previously targeted Caesars through the registration of more than a dozen domain names that included Complainant’s well-known THE LINQ mark, using these domain names to profit through pay-per-click links and offered to sell a number of these domains to the Complainant for more than a million dollars each. A previous NAF panel found that Respondent had registered and used the domain names in bad faith and ordered that all of the domain names be transferred to the Complainant.

Respondent makes it clear that he does not approve of the UDRP process. Respondent believes that cash payment for domain name registrations entitles him to keep any domain name he desires.

Complainant affirms that Respondent simply states that the present UDRP proceeding is “illegal,” “unethical,” and a “force arbitration” but does not submit any facts in rebuttal of Complainant’s allegations regarding Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and bad faith registration and use of the Domain Names.

The Panel finds that the Complainant is indeed the owner of valid United States Federal registration for the HIGH HOLLER mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

he Panel finds that, even though the Respondent denies the applicability of the UDRP on its response, the Respondent consented to be bound to the UDRP when it executed the Registration Agreements with the Registrars, as noted in the Registrars’ verification messages received by the Forum between September 10, 2014 and September 15, 2014. The verification e-mail from the registrars reflects that the UDRP applies to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.

Complainant argues that all of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the HIGH ROLLER trademark. The Panel acknowledges that all of the , , , , , , and domain names tag either a related term such as “wheel” or “ride” or “tickets,” along with event-related terms such as “date(s)” or “weddings,” and in some instances the geographic abbreviation for Las Vegas, “lv.”

The Panel finds that as Respondent has failed to make meaningful allegations as to its tie to the domain names in the Response, there is no basis for finding that Respondent is indeed known by HIGH HOLLER.

The Panel notes that the domain names are a mix of websites that resolve to content discussing services offered at the HIGH ROLLER facility, or to websites that promote various third-party hyperlinks and finds that none of these uses conform to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) which requires a good faith offering of a commercial nature, or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) which requires that any noncommercial use be legitimate or fair.

Regarding the domain name , the Panel finds that the passive holding of such a confusingly similar domain name is outside the bounds of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) , since it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

The Panel finds that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HIGH ROLLER trademark at the time the disputed domain names were registered, since the resolving pages contain content discussing Complainant’s Linq and Higher Roller projects. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent acted in bad faith under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

Complainant argues that Respondent claims that the disputed domain names are all being used to profit from the likelihood of Internet users’ confusion as to Complainant’s association with the offerings. In particular, Complainant suggests that the and domain names feature information about the new HIGH ROLLER wheel. The Panel finds that taken together, the various uses of the domain names leave the impression that Respondent is affiliated with or in cahoots with Complainant when such a conclusion is patently false. Thus, this Panel finds that the Respondent acted in bad faith Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith.

Complainant also argues that the domain name has no active use. This Panel finds that despite the non-use of this domain name, the bad faith can be implied under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.