Caesars World Loses UDRP Bid For To A Massage Parlor in Thailand

Caesars World, Inc the company that owns Caesars Palace, just lost a UDRP on the domain name

The domain is owned by P.T.Complex Co.,Ltd (“Respondent”) which operates a massage parlor by the same name in Thailand.

I knew that would get your attention.

So the UDRP panel recognizing that parties were already in litigation, passed on making a ruling on the UDRP leaving the courts to decide.

This is markedly different from the panel in UDRP, which despite pending court action decided the UDRP likewise the panel in the case, came to a decision despite a pending court case.

Here are the facts and findings by the one person panel;

“Complainant has operated the Caesars Palace Casino in Las Vegas since 1966. The mark CAESARS was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 763,255) on January 14, 1964.”

“In 1997 the Respondent changed, without the Complainant’s knowledge or consent, its name of its massage parlor business from Cleopatra to Caesars Entertainment.

“At some point later Respondent started to use design marks in connection to its business with design portions identical to a prior mark of the Complainant.”

“After a process against the Respondent in The Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court in Thailand (hereinafter the IP and IT Court), the court cancelled the Respondents registrations of two design marks featuring design portions identical to design marks previously registered and used by the Complaint. The disputed domain name was registered on May 28, 2001, and the Respondent has used and is using the disputed domain name in connection with its, to the Complainant competing, business.”

“In the legal process in Thailand, the IP and IT Court found that the Respondent had registered and used the Complainant’s trademarks in bad faith with full knowledge of the Complainants trademark rights. The IP and IT Court also enjoined the Respondent from use of the website linked to the disputed domain name.”

“At some point later Respondent started to use design marks in connection to its business with design portions identical to a prior mark of the Complainant.”

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 28, 2001.

Complainant is the holder of numerous registered CAESARS and CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT trademarks world wide.

Prior to the filing of the Complaint in this case, the Respondent registered Thai service marks Reg. Nos. 341824/Bor7027 and 662683/Bor34922, Respondent’s providing, offers or advertising of services under or use of the trade name CAESARS or Respondents use the word CAESARS in any form, as well as its right to use the website linked to the disputed domain name, has been challenged in a separate legal proceeding. ”

“A decision in the proceeding was taken by the IP and IT Court of Thailand on 30 January, 2012. That decision has been appealed by both Complainant (April 19, 2012) and Respondent (April 27, 2012) and is now pending. A decision to stay the judgment has been given (April 27, 2012).”

“In its Complaint, the Complainant partly grounds its transfer request on the IP and IT Courts decision stating that the Respondent’s service mark registrations have been cancelled and that the Court has enjoined the Respondent to use the website linked to the disputed domain name. ”

“This is illustrated by the following quotations from the Complaint: “Accordingly, the IP & IT Court cancelled Respondent’s registrations and enjoined it from “use of the website under the domain name”

“Ownership of the Domain Name was outside the scope of the IP & IT Court proceeding. Caesars therefore now brings this proceeding to secure transfer of the Domain Name based on Respondent’s adjudged bad faith conduct.” and “The IP & IT Court, after full presentation of evidence, found that Respondent does not have the right to use the CAESARS mark and that, “in doing his business [Respondent] rides on the fame of the service marks and the Caesars Head Device of [Caesar].”

“However, the Complainant fails to mention that the decision referred to has not entered into force and effect.”

“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. ”

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.”

“Further, this domain name dispute is related to a dispute that is well beyond the scope of UDRP Proceedings.”

“The Panel notes that the full dispute between the parties is already the subject of civil litigation. The Panel finds that the civil court is a better suited arena for the presenting of evidence for the comprehensive adjudication of the dispute. ”

“In any case, no purpose is served by giving a decision based on the merits of this case when it is likely that it will not have any practical consequences.

“For the foregoing reasons, the Panel has decided to terminate this proceeding without expressing its view as to the merits of the case.”

“The Complaint of the Complainant with respect to the domain name <> is hereby dismissed.”


  1. Kron says

    Interesting. Rick Schwartz would domain disputes that to child molesting (read his blog, but dont expect anything other than praise or something that suits his agenda to be posted).

    And now he’s instigating an investigation into iCann because they could find criminal activity..

    WOW, Rick Schwartz made half of his money from sending his adult traffic to the Australian porn mafia who were multi billing customers credit cards (the only way RW could get the amount of money he was receiving for his traffic), all while teaming up with his Russian mafia link Serge on the message boards in some sort of protection scam that protected him from people revealing his activities and countless deals that went bad with other webmaster programmes that lost millions through his pre paid high octance traffic promises that NEVER delivered!

    And now he wants an investigation in to iCann for possible criminal activity?? oh man

  2. Jeff Schneider says

    Hello Rick, or is it Michael, or Frank?

    I dont know anymore, but we AGREE! Virtual business foundations.

    KUDOS for having the courage!

    Respectfully Jeff Schneider

  3. Michael H. Berkens says


    Can you tell me what Rick Schwartz has to do with this post?

    I didn’t agree with his position equating child molestation to RDNH, i think its a ridiculous position that insults anyone who has been a victim of such a crime which is on the same level as rape, but he’s not a party to this case, its not his blog, he didn’t comment on this post, so I’m clueless why you bring him up

  4. Kron says


    Well Rick Schwartz is held as a leader in domaining and just a couple of days ago posted his opinion of rdnh, and this post is about a domain name dispute. My post is on topic.

    In addition, you will all support Rick Schwartz’s TRAFFIC conference, a conference that will award people for being outstanding at something, with the awards posted across all of the industry blogs, and you will all sit there knowing or not knowing the history of the person behind the awards.

    If you know, it’s hypocritical. But if you dont know, you’re getting conned. And if you do know, it’s only business, we know, but dont post information about it on your website supporting TRAFFIC and/or Rick Schwartz directly and expect people not to question it in one one or another.

    Will you be going to TRAFFIC?

  5. Michael H. Berkens says


    I will be going to TRAFFIC and I usually go to Domainfest and I go to ICANN.

    I don’t have to support the view of the organizer of the conference 100% of the time to go to a conference.

    Rick made a statement which I don’t agree with so

    I don’t agree with everything our President does but I don’t move out of the country.

    I certainly don’t agree with everything ICANN does or says and certainly not everything Oversee does or has said.

    For that matter pretty much everyone in the world at some point I disagree with something everyone does or says have said or done but I’m not following your logic.

  6. Kron says

    Micheal, fair point to a degree, but with Rick Schwartz running it it makes a joke out the TRAFFIC awards for excellence, dont you think?

    And with Rick Schwartz running the show, not only does it make the awards mean nothing, it means they’re almost certainly rigged.

  7. says

    “The disputed domain name was registered on May 28, 2001, and the Respondent has used and is using the disputed domain name in connection with its, to the Complainant competing, business.”

    Interesting, didn’t know they were into prostitution. I assume it was illegal in Las Vegas (down town area).

  8. Kron says


    WTF does any of that have to do with Thai massage parlors?

    It’s adult related. As is Rick Schwartz’s credit card scam in partnership with the Aussie porn mafia.

    But your comments indicate probably what a lot of domainers/speculators/type of person in this industry are thinking “hey each person only lost hundreds of dollars in the scam, so no biggie and i’d probably do the same if it made me as much as it made Rick”. But even the majority of domainers would draw the line after knowing the damage it did to the shareholders of the Australian listed company that lost MILLIONS when the company merchant account was cancelled, followed by legal proceedings against Dean Shannon (Ricks fat slob partner).

    Oh but dont worry, DS sold 10 or more millions just a week or so before the merchant account was cancelled and goT away with it (i know nothing type stuff), and Rick Schwartz had already gotten away with his 10 million + in the scam.

  9. Larry says

    i know the story here, and if each customer was over billed just a $100 and Mr Schwartz made over $10 million, that’s at least 100,000 people h ripped off

Comment Policy: welcomes reader comments. Please follow these simple rules:

  • Stay on topic
  • Refrain from personal attacks
  • Avoid profanity
  • Links should be related to the topic of the post
  • No spamming. Listing domains, products, or services will get the comment deleted

We reserve the right to remove comments if we deem it necessary.

Join the Discussion