Ellerman Investments Limited; The Ritz Hotel Casino Limited v. Antonios Manessis (trading as .com and Manessis.com)

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Ellerman Investments Limited and The Ritz Hotel Casino Limited

v.

Antonios Manessis (trading as .com and manessis.com)

Case No. D2001-1461

1. The Parties

1.1 The Complainants in this administrative proceeding are Ellerman

Investments Limited, a private company with limited liability incorporated

under the laws of England with its principal place of business in England

and The Ritz Hotel Casino Limited, also a private company with limited

liability, incorporated under the laws of England, with its principal

place of business in England. The First Complainant is the 75% shareholder

of the Second Complainant, both having London SW1A 1ES, UK as their business

address.

1.2 The Respondent in this administrative proceeding is Antonios Manessis

(trading as .com and MANESSIS.COM), Corfu, Greece, GR49100, Greece.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

2.1 The Domain Name, the subject of this dispute, is <ritzclub.com>

2.2 The Domain Name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc,

a Verisign Inc. company, 487, E. Mountainfield Road, Mountain View,

CA 94043, USA,

3. Procedural History

3.1 The Complaint was filed electronically on December 17, 2001.

3.2 The Complainant elected to have the dispute decided by a single-member

Administrative Panel.

3.3 No legal proceedings have been initiated, as yet. (Rules for Uniform

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules"), paragraph 3(b)(xi)).

3.4 As required by the Rules and the WIPO Supplemental Rules, payment

in the amount of USD 1,500.00 has been made, payable to World Intellectual

Property Organization.

3.5 The Complainant agreed that its claim and remedies concerning

the registration of the Domain Name, the dispute, or the dispute’s resolution

shall be solely against the Domain Name holder and waived all such claims

and remedies against (a) the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center and

Panelists, except in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, (b) the concerned

Registrar, (c) the Registry Administrator, (d) the Internet Corporation

for Assigned Names and Numbers, as well as their directors, officers,

employees and agents.

3.6 On December 28, 2001, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

("the Center") transmitted via e-mail to, a request for registrar

verification in connection with this case and on January 2, 2002,

the Center received a verification response confirming that the domain

names is registered with Network Solutions and that the Registrant for

the domain name is the Respondent.

3.7 Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding

was sent to Respondent by the Center on January 24, 2002, electronically,

by fax and by registered mail.

The electronic message was returned by the system with the error message:

Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation

The facsimile transmission was also unsuccessful.

The hardcopies of the Notification of Complaint were sent to the Respondent

by registered post, as the address was a post office box to which a courier

could not have been used. As of February 27, 2002 the

Center reported:

we are still not in receipt of the delivery confirmation slip and

so are uncertain as to whether it was received by the Respondent

3.8 Respondent was determined to be in default on February 15, 2002.

3.9 On February 15, 2002, Respondent communicated by e-mail with Center

for the first time, to the effect:

this was the email i sent you on the 15th of February:

This is the first email I receive as a notification.

Which was the deadline?????

Could you please resend "original" notification....in order to forward

it to my lawyer.

Yours Sincerely,

Antonios Manessis

To which the Center replied on February 18, 2002 with a message

outlining earlier attempts to communicate with the Respondent and ended

this message with the statement:

In order for us to communicate successfully with you we kindly request

that you provide us with alternative contact details.

We would also be grateful if you were to confirm receipt of this

email and two previously sent by us informing you of the appointment

of Panel and Transmission of Case File to the Panel.

Please note that the Center will attempt to send this communication

to you via facsimile as well.

3.10 On February 25, 2002 the Respondent again communicated with the

Center by e-mail with the following message:

as you can see i did not receive your email of January 24th,

so the whole process is in question,

i will thus advise my lawyers...

sincerely,

Antonios Manessis .

3.11 The Center replied on February 26, 2002 to the Respondent

as follows:

The Center acknowledges receipt of your email communication dated

February 25, 2002 (see below). In this regard, please

be advised that the Center has fulfilled its duties under paragraphs

2 of the Rules, as evidenced by our communication records sent to

you by our email of February 25, 2002.

3.12 The single Panel member, Cecil O.D. Branson, Q.C., submitted

a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence

and was duly appointed on February 25, 2002, in accordance with

paragraph 15 of the Rules. The Panel was required to forward its decision

to the Center by March 11, 2002.

3.13 Subsequent to receiving the file by electronic communication

from the Center, the Panel, in light of the e-mail referred to paragraph

3.10 above, sought further information from the parties and the Center

in order that it could be satisfied that the service requirements of the

Complaint on the Respondent were conducted properly and that the Respondent

thereafter had an adequate opportunity to file a Reply. As the result

of subsequent communications from the Center and on behalf of the Complainants,

this Panel is so satisfied of this and that it has jurisdiction to proceed.

3.14 The Panel finds that it was properly constituted and appointed

in accordance with the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.

4. Factual Background

4.1 The Complainant Ellerman Investments Limited is a limited liability

company incorporated under the laws of England and having its principal

place of business in England. The Complainant, Ritz Hotel Casino Limited,

is also a private company incorporated under the laws of England, with

its principal place of business in England. The first Complainant is the

75% shareholder of the second Complainant. The second Complainant is the

exclusive licensee of the first Complainant’s rights in certain "Ritz"

trademarks for the provision of gaming services at the Ritz Casino.

4.2 According to the Network Solutions, Inc Whois database, the Registrant

of the domain name at issue is ".com". However the administrative and

billing contact for the domain name is Mr. Antonios Manessis. Mr Manessis,

in his capacity as the administrative and billing contact, gives the same

address as ".com". In providing his contact details as administrative

and billing contact he identifies the further trading style "manessis.com".

Further, in the course of this administrative proceeding Mr. Manessis

has represented that he is the correct registrant for the domain name.

Therefore, this Administrative Panel finds that the Respondent in this

administrative proceeding is Antonios Manessis, trading as ".com"

and <manessis.com>, from Corfu, Greece.

4.3 The first Complainant is the owner of The Ritz Hotel (London)

Limited, the company that owns and runs the well-known Ritz Hotel in London,

England. The second Complainant is the recipient of an exclusive licence

from the first Complainant in relation to the use of Ritz Trade Marks

for the provision of gaming services associated with The Ritz Hotel. This

operation has for many years been known as the "Ritz Club".

4.4 Over the years, since at least 1990, substantial sums have been

expended in the promotion and marketing of the Ritz Club in the UK and

internationally.

4.5 The Complainant Ellerman Investments Limited is the proprietor

of a large portfolio of registered trademarks incorporating the marks,

THE RITZ CLUB, RITZ and RITZ CASINO. Included in these are the mark "RITZ"

registration no. 1509163 for the UK in class 41, gaming services

and "RITZ" registration no. 7892 for Jersey, class 41 for

gaming services, THE RITZ CLUB registration no. 2206186, in the UK for

class 41 gaming services, and registration no. 7890 in Jersey for

class 41 gaming services, and "THE RITZ CLUB and device" registration

no. 2206189 in the UK for class 41, gaming services.

4.6 The flagship Ritz Club has, for many years, operated out of the

former ballroom of the Ritz Hotel in London, but moved to St. James Street

in 1998, where it continues to operate. In addition, the Ritz Club has

sponsored numerous sporting events and charity events worldwide including

events in the UK, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Abu Dhabi, and Cyprus,

and through a subsidiary runs casinos on board a number of cruise ships.

These casinos hold "Ritz Club" nights on the ships where the

casinos on board are decorated to look like the Ritz Club in London.

4.7 The operation of the Ritz Club enterprises as above create a turnover

of millions of pounds annually.

4.8 The first Complainant has many other pending trademark registrations

for the trademarks Ritz, the Ritz Club and Ritz Casino for gaming services

throughout the world and is planning to sponsor website for gaming services,

which one of the likely Domain Names is <theritzclub.com>, which

is already owned by the first Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

5.1 The Complainant says that the Domain Name <ritzclub.com>

is identical to its registered trademark THE RITZ CLUB and confusingly

similar to its registered trademark RITZ CASINO for gaming services because

it incorporates the "primary, distinctive element" of the first Complainant's

trade marks, i.e. the word "Ritz".

5.2 The Complainant says that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate

interests in the Domain Name. In support of this allegation, it has demonstrated

that it conducted a WISS trademark search world-wide on the trademark

RITZ on September 5, 2001, and at that date, subject to the

accuracy and currency of the search, no trademarks in the name of the

Respondent were identified. It also employs a trademark watching service

on the trademark RITZ and it has not received any notices of any applications

for the trademark RITZ or RITZ CLUB by the Respondent since September 5, 2001

or ever. As far as the Complainants are aware, the Respondent has no trademark

rights in the mark RITZ CLUB.

5.3 The Complainants add that as they are in the process of setting

up a web-site to provide, via a related company, gaming services online

over the Internet, the Respondent's registration and use of the Domain

Name for gaming services will inevitably cause confusion in the minds

of the Second Complainant's existing customers and potential customers

for gaming services, who will think that the Respondent's gaming services

originate from the owner or licensee of the registered marks in which

both Complainants have an interest.

5.4 The Complainants submit that the Respondent should be considered

as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

5.5 The Complainants submit that the Domain Name should be found to

have been registered and used in bad faith, inter alia, for the

following reasons:

(a) The web site at <ritzclub.com> was originally inaccessible,

and although the Respondent has not been actively trading from the

website under the Domain Name, inactivity can constitute use of the

Domain Name in bad faith.

(b) The Respondent has demanded an extortionate sum which greatly

exceeds his actual expenses and seeking payment which exceeds out

of pocket expenses for the transfer of a Domain Name can in itself

constitute commercial use of the Domain Name.

(c) The Complainants, through an agent, contacted the Respondent

about this matter, after which the website became active in approximately

November 2001, and shortly after began to carry a notice which

states that the web site hopes to be online by Christmas 2001.

This, suggest the Complainants, shows that the Respondent was trying

to put pressure on the Complainants to agree to his demands for money.

The Respondent acquired the Domain Name primarily to sell it to the Complainants

(a) The Complainants approached the Respondent via a private investigator,

first by email and then through a follow up telephone call. The Respondent’s

response by an email dated August 23, 2001, was that he

is "in the 'on-line gaming' space for the last 2½ years and YES

I plan to develop all my domains!". The Respondent also made it

clear that the Domain Name was for sale but only if "an offer [he]

cannot refuse" was made. The Complainants say that it is clear

from this email that the Respondent intends to use the Domain Name

for the provision of gaming services, which constitutes an infringement

or a threatened infringement of the registered Ritz Trade Marks.

(b) Upon being requested to state his asking price for the Domain

Name, the Respondent replied by e-mail dated August 27, 2001,

that the Domain Name "is a very well known phrase in the Gaming

space with excellent brand awareness". This, say the Complainants,

can only be a reference to the Complainants’ reputation for gaming

services, since (as far the Complainants are aware) no one else in

the world provides gaming services under the name "Ritz Club".

(c) The Respondent initially demanded the sum of US$290,000 from

the Complainants’ agent to purchase the Domain Name which say the

Complainants, is clearly an extortionate amount and, given that the

Respondent has not been providing gaming services, this huge value

attributed to the name can only result from the value and goodwill

built up by the Complainants through their use of the Ritz Club trademark.

(d) The Complainants' authorized representatives wrote to the

Respondent on September 10, 2001 setting out the Complainants'

rights in the Ritz Trade Marks and made an offer, in the interests

of avoiding unnecessary legal costs, to pay the Respondent's reasonable

out of pocket costs.

(e) Following further correspondence with the Complainants' solicitors,

the Respondent subsequently demanded US$145,500 for the transfer of

the Domain Name in an email dated October 3, 2001, which

the Complainants say is evidence of the bad faith of the Respondent

in registering the Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the

UDRP.

The Respondent intends to attract Internet users to the website by creating

confusion with the Complainants’ marks.

(a) Prior to the Complainants contacting the Respondent, the Respondent

was aware of the brand RITZ for gaming services and the reputation

associated with it, which is owned by the Complainants.

(b) Since being contacted by the Complainants, the Respondent

has been made aware of the full extent of the Complainants' rights

in the Domain Name.

(c) The Respondent has said in correspondence that he intends

to use the Domain Name to provide gaming services. The web site at

the Domain Name states that it will be active by Christmas 2001.

(d) The Respondent, say the Complainants, therefore deliberately

intends to create a likelihood of confusion with the registered trademarks

for gaming services.

(e) As a result of the world-wide fame of the Ritz Club, there

is no legitimate user of the RITZ CLUB mark for gaming services other

than the Complainants. The Respondent was aware of the reputation

associated with the Ritz Club mark from before the time that he was

first approached on behalf of the Complainants. Where a Respondent

knows, or should have known of the Complainants’ use and registration

of the trademark before registering the Domain Name, this constitutes

bad faith.

(f) The Respondent has not given any explanation to the Complainants

why it chose the Domain Name. Where the trade mark incorporated in

the disputed Domain Name is extremely well known, intent to use in

bad faith may be inferred where the Respondent has shown no good reason

for choosing that particular Domain Name. The only possible reason

for the Respondent to have registered the Domain Name is to benefit

from the goodwill and reputation associated with the Complainants’

"Ritz Club" mark. This is evidence of the bad faith of the

Respondent in registering the Domain Name.

(g) The registration of the Domain Name was therefore made in

bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.

(h) The Complainants have plans to launch a website for gaming

services, of which one of the likely Domain Names is <theritzclub.com>

(already owned by the first Complainant) and its plans will be seriously

affected by the Respondent's plans for a website at the Domain Name.

The customers of the second Complainant are bound to assume that the

gaming services offered by the Respondent are related to the second

Complainant and if the Respondent's services are not of the highest

quality and probity, the reputation and goodwill associated with the

Ritz Club may be adversely affected. Further damage will occur if

the security of the Respondent's website does not satisfy the stringent

requirements that the customers of the second Complainant have come

to expect from gaming services originating from the second Complainant.

B. Respondent

5.6 The Respondent has not filed a Response to the Complaint, even

though it was given additional time by this Panel to do so until Friday,

March 8, 2002. Under para. 5(e) of the Rules, it is provided

that if a Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional

circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.

As no exceptional circumstances have been brought to the Panel’s attention,

it proceeds to make the findings below on the basis of the material contained

in the Complaint.

C. No Other Submissions

5.7 The Panel has not received any other requests from Complainant

or Respondent regarding further submissions, beyond the Complaint, waivers

or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to

request any further information from the Parties.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant must

prove each of the following requirements:

(i) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical

or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests

in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in

bad faith.

These matters are considered in turn below.

(i) The Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly

similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.

6.2 This first factor contains two elements:

First, does Complainant have rights in a relevant mark, and second, is the

Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that mark. Plaza Operating

Partners, Ltd. v. POP Data Technologies and Joseph Pillus, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0166.

6.3 This Panel accepts that the first Complainant, namely Ellerman

Investments Limited, is the holder of the registration for the marks referred

to above.

6.4 The only difference between the Domain Name, <ritzclub.com> and the

mark THE RITZ CLUB in which first Complainant has rights, as above, is the deletion

of the word "the" in the Domain Name. The absence of the article "the"

does not lessen the virtually identical and confusingly similar nature of a

Domain Name: The Chip Merchant, Inc. v. Blue Star Electronics, d/b/a Memory

World, WIPO Case No. D2000-0474.

6.5 "Essential" or "virtual" identity is sufficient for

the purposes of the Policy: The Stanley Works and Stanley Logistics Inc.

v. Cam Creek Co. Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0113,

Nokia Corp. v. Nokiagirls.com a.k.a IBCC, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0102, and America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,

WIPO Case No. D2001-0004; Disney Enterprises,

Inc. v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a Cupcake City and Cupcake Patrol, WIPO

Case No. D2001-0489; Komatsu Ltd. and Komatsu America International Company

v. RKWeb Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2000-0995;

America Online Inc. v. Andy Hind, WIPO Case

No. D2001-0642; The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Boris Karpachev, WIPO

Case No. D2000-1571.

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of

the domain name.

6.6 Para. 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each

of the three material elements, including that the Respondent has no legitimate

interests in respect of the Domain Name. Indeed, the concluding sentence

says "In the administrative proceeding, the Complainant must prove

that each of these three elements are present." This may present

a problem for a Complainant as it will therefore have to prove a negative.

This problem is exacerbated where the Respondent does not participate

in the proceedings as Complainant will have no way of knowing what particular

rights or legitimate interests will be advanced on behalf of the Respondent.

On the other hand, para. 4(c) of the Policy, with the heading "How

to Demonstrate Your Rights to and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name

in Responding to a Complaint", goes on to say:

"When you receive a complaint, you should refer to Paragraph

5 of the Rules of Procedure in determining how your response should

be prepared. Any of the following circumstances, in particular but

without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its

evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights

or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph

4(a)(ii). . . ."

This appears to contradict the earlier suggestion that Complainant bears the

onus throughout the proceedings. The various approaches taken by Panels to this

dilemma have been fairly set out in the Panel decision in Do The Hustle, LLC

v. Tropic Web WIPO Case No. D2000-0624.

Some Panels have said that the Respondent need do nothing in the absence of

affirmative proof by the Complainant that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate

interest in respect of the domain name at issue. See VereSign, Inc. v. VeneSign,

C.A., WIPO Case No. D2000-0303; Gassen

Diamonds B.V. v. Van Etten Bernardus Joacbus, NAF-0149a; NAF-0149b; Beijing

Pernot Ricard Winery Co.Ltd. v. Capital Enterprises Group, Inc., NAF-0177;

Vanguard Medica Limited v. Theo McCormick, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0067; Penguin Books Limited v. The Katz Family and Anthony

Katz, WIPO Case No. D2000-0204. Other

decisions have dealt with this problem by reducing the burden of proof upon

the Complainant to one which is "relatively light". See Educational

Testing Services v. Netkorea Co., WIPO

Case No. D2000-0087; Europay International S.A. v. Eurocard.com, Inc.

EuroCard.org and Chad Folkening, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0173. Yet, other Panels have suggested that the failure of

the Respondent to provide any evidence that it comes within the wording of para.

4(c) in determining whether a Complainant meets this burden of proof under para.

4(a)(ii). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0150. The greatest number of Panel decisions have held that

the interaction between para. 4(a)(ii) and 4(c) is such that the obligation

is on the Complainant to make out a prima facie case and that having

been done, it is for the Respondent to demonstrate the contrary. See Document

Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc. WIPO

Case No. D2000-0207; Universal City Studios, Inc. v. G.A.B. Enterprises

WIPO Case No. D2000-0416; Newman/Haas

Racing v. Virtual Agents, Inc. WIPO Case

No. D2000-1688. In the Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web case, the

Panel went further and held that there was a need for a Complainant to bring

forward "concrete evidence" to this approach to which the Panel meant

evidence which constitutes more than mere personal assertions. Indeed, the Panel

went on to say:

"In short, it is not sufficient for a respondent to say, ‘Everyone

knows me by x name,’ or ‘I have witnesses who would say

. . ’. Evidence in the form of documents or third party declarations

should be furnished in support of such assertions. A panel is not

required to blindly accept assertions offered by a respondent, any

more than it is required to accept unsupported assertions offered

by a complainant. It is especially important under this procedure

to test respondent’s assertions for evidentiary support and credibility,

since normally the complainant has no opportunity to counter the respondent's

assertions, while the respondent does have the opportunity to counter

those of the complainant."

That Panel went so far as to say that failure of a Respondent to come forward

with such evidence is tantamount to admitting the truth of Complainant’s assertions

in this regard. As for whether it is sufficient for the Complainant to make

a prima facie case, it has been held that where the domain name is Complainant’s

well-known name and there is evidence the Complainant had not granted the Respondent

a license to use the Complainant’s name, this will suffice. See Newman/Haas

Racing v. Virtual Agents, Inc. WIPO Case

No. D2000-1688. Where a Respondent asserts no rights or legitimate interests

in the disputed Domain Name, and the Panel cannot presently conceive of any

legally sound basis on which any such assertion might be made, despite the lack

of any further statements made by the Complainant other than an assertion that

the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain

Name, can still result in a finding for the Complainant on this element. See

America Online, Inc. v. Kandl Co. Ltd., WIPO

Case No. D2000-1695.

Another Panel has held that the correct approach is for the Complainant to

make the allegation and put forward what it can in support (e.g. it has rights

to the name, the Respondent has no rights to the name of which it is aware,

it has not given any permission to the Respondent). Unless the allegation is

manifestly misconceived, the Respondent has a case to answer and that is where

paragraph 4(c) of the Policy comes in. If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate

his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint

succeeds under this head. See Margaret Drabble v. Old Barn Studios Ltd.,

WIPO Case No. D2001-0209.

6.7 This Panel finds that the first Complainant in this case has brought

itself within the above tests and therefore shown that the Respondent

has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

(iii) The Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in

bad faith.

6.8 As for a significant period of time the website <ritzclub.com> was

inactive, the Complainants rely on Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows,

WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 where the Panel

stated: "the concept of a domain name being used in bad faith is not limited

to positive action; inaction is within the concepts." The Complainants also

rely on Mary-Lynn Mondich, et al v. Shane Brown, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0004 where the Panel said: "it is possible to infer from

this failure of use that the domain name was registered without a bona fide

intent to make good faith use". Respondent had owned the Domain Name since

January 1999, over two years, which allowed the Panel to find a lack of

intention to use the Domain Name in good faith. The Panel in the Telstra

case went on to make it clear that in addition to the inactivity there must

also be an intention to sell, rent or transfer the registration, that is a pattern

of conduct preventing a trade mark owner’s use of the registration, for paragraph

4(b)(ii); with the primary purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor,

for paragraph 4(b)(iii). The question of what circumstances of inaction (passive

holding) can constitute a Domain Name being used in bad faith cannot be answered

in the abstract, but only in respect of the particular facts of a specific case.

Therefore, the Administrative Panel must give close attention to all the circumstances

of the Respondent’s behaviour. I have done this and find that there has been

sufficient behaviour shown in this case to make a finding of bad faith in respect

of the Respondent. In particular, reference is made to the clear knowledge demonstrated

by the Respondent of the Complainants’ reputation for gaming services shown

from the Respondent’s comment that his Domain Name "is a very well known

phrase in the Gaming space with excellent brand awareness". Also, the initial

demand for the sum of US $290,000 for the Domain Name is clearly an extortionate

amount and leads to a conclusion that the Respondent knew or should have known

of the Complainants’ use and registration of the trademark before registering

the Domain Name. This constitutes bad faith. See SportSoft Golf Inc v Hale

Irwin's Golfer's Passport, NAF Case FA94956; E&J Gallo Winery v Oak

Investment Group, WIPO Case No. D2000-1213;

Toyota Motor Sales USA v. Rafi Hamid dba ABC Automobile Buyer, WIPO

Case No. D2001-0032; Vivendi Universal v. Mr. Jay David Sallen and

GO247.COM, INC., WIPO Case No. D2001-1121.

6.9 Given the evidence put forward by the Complainants, and the lack

of any Response from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Domain Name

<ritzclub.com> has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

7.1 This Panel finds and decides that:

(a) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark

or service mark in which the Complainants have rights;

(b) the Complainants have established that Respondent has no rights

or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name <ritzclub.com>;

(c) the Complainants have established that the Domain Name has

been registered, and is being used in bad faith.

7.2 The ruling of this Panel is that the registration of the Domain

Name <ritzclub.com> be transferred to the Complainant Ellerman Investments

Limited.

Cecil O.D. Branson, Q.C.

Sole Panelist

Dated: March 9, 2002

More cases by this complainant

• Ellerman Investments Limited; The Ritz Hotel Casino Limited v. Al Cleary — D2003-0362 · ritzcasinoclub.com · Transfer · 17 Jul 2003