World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
Claim Number: FA2004001893019
Complainant is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew C. Winterroth of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Connecticut, United States. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD ("Respondent"), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wwwenetwork.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 21, 2020; the Forum received payment on April 21, 2020.
On April 24, 2020, Media Elite Holdings Limited confirmed by email to the Forum that the <wwwenetwork.com> domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On April 24, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 14, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@wwwenetwork.com. Also on April 24, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 18, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant promotes retail and entertainment services and consumer products throughout the world. Its programming is broadcast in more than 145 countries, reaching more than 500 million homes. Complainant has used WWE and related marks in connection with its services and products since adopting the World Wrestling Entertainment name in 2002 and subsequently rebranding itself WWE in 2011. Complainant owns and uses many different domain names to promote its services and products, including <wwe.com> and <wwenetwork.com>. Complainant owns trademark registrations for WWE and related marks in the United States, China, and many other jurisdictions. Complainant asserts that its WWE mark has become famous and has been recognized as such in a previous proceeding under the Policy. See World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Damn Crise, FA 1662389 (Forum Mar. 15, 2016).
The disputed domain name <wwwenetwork.com> was registered in March 2014. The domain name is currently registered in the name of Respondent. It is being used for a website consisting of pay-per-click links, some of which incorporate WWE and SMACKDOWN, another mark owned by Complainant, in the anchor text. Complainant states that the website allows users to view unlicensed content that is identical to the copyrighted content offered by WWE and its partners. Complainant states further that Respondent is not sponsored or endorsed by Complainant, is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's marks, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <wwwenetwork.com> is confusingly similar to its WWE mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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."
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.
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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <wwwenetwork.com> incorporates Complainant's registered WWE trademark, adding a letter "w" and the generic term "network" and appending the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., WeWork Companies, Inc. v. Michael Chiriac, Various Concepts Inc., D2016-1817 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2016) (finding <wwwework.com> confusingly similar to WEWORK); Watts Water Technologies Inc. v. Yexiaoming / Woci Famen Youxiangongsi, FA 1584227 (Forum Nov. 25, 2014) (finding <wwattsv.com> confusingly similar to WATTS); World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Mohan Paul c/o Roamsoft Technologies, FA 1569608 (Forum Aug. 20, 2014) (finding <wwenetwork.info> confusingly similar to WWE); World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Mohan Paul c/o Roamsoft Technologies, FA 1569568 (Forum Aug. 19, 2014) (finding <wwenetwork.us> confusingly similar to WWE); World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. REDA EL KASRAOUI, FA 1416010 (Forum Dec. 29, 2011) (finding <wwenetwork.net> confusingly similar to WWE). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a website that displays Complainant marks and consists of pay-per-click links, some of which allegedly lead to unlicensed copies of Complainant's content. Such conduct does not give rise to rights or interests under the Policy. See, e.g., World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Irfan Ali, FA 1623202 (Forum July 9, 2015) (finding lack of rights or interests arising from website that enabled unauthorized viewing of complainant's copyrighted content); World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Mohan Paul c/o Roamsoft Technologies, FA 1569568, supra (finding lack of rights or interests arising from website consisting of links to third-party commercial websites); World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. REDA EL KASRAOUI, supra (finding lack of rights or interests arising from website consisting of links to copycat sites featuring unlicensed content).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's famous mark (and differing by only the addition of one letter from a domain name used by Complainant, in a clear instance of typosquatting). The domain name is being used for a website that consists of pay-per-click links, including links that incorporate Complainant's marks and allegedly facilitate access to unlicensed copies of Complainant's content. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Irfan Ali, supra; World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Mohan Paul c/o Roamsoft Technologies, FA 1569568, supra; World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. REDA EL KASRAOUI, supra. The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wwwenetwork.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: May 18, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page