World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Online Ticket
Claim Number: FA2111001972146
Complainant is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew C. Winterroth of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Connecticut, USA. Respondent is Online Ticket (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wweticket.com>, registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc.
Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 5, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 5, 2021.
On November 8, 2021, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <wweticket.com> domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OwnRegistrar, Inc. 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 November 8, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 29, 2021, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@wweticket.com. Also on November 8, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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.
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, World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., is an integrated media organization principally dealing in wrestling entertainment. Complainant has rights in the WWE mark and numerous others based on registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <wweticket.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s WWE mark, simply adding the descriptive wording “ticket” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to form the disputed domain name.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <wweticket.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s WWE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent appears to be using the disputed domain to sell counterfeit goods and fraudulent event tickets and merchandise.
Respondent registered and uses the <wweticket.com> domain in bad faith. The disputed domain name includes Complainant’s trademark and strongly implies a connection therewith. Respondent appears to be attempting to imply affiliation with Complainant’s mark to pursue financial gain. Respondent acted with constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WWE mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, based upon the uncontested allegations and evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <wweticket.com> domain name.
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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant asserts rights in the WWE mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3056074, registered May 7, 2002.) Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Complainant provides evidence of registration of the WWE mark with the USPTO. The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <wweticket.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s WWE mark, simply adding the descriptive term “ticket” and a gTLD. Addition of a descriptive term and a gTLD to a mark does not negate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Empowered Medical Solutions, Inc. d/b/a QRS-Direct and QRS Magnovit AG v. NULL NULL / QUANTRON RESONANCE SYSTEMS / JIM ANDERSON / HTR / unknown HTR / HTR, FA 1784937 (Forum June 8, 2018); see also Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018). Complainant notes that the only differences between the disputed domain name and the mark are the additions of the descriptive term “ticket” and the “.com” gTLD. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WWE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <wweticket.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the WWE mark or register domain names using Complainant’s mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information and a lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may be used to determine that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Online Ticket”, and there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the WWE mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the <wweticket.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent is engaged in the sale of counterfeit goods. The sale of counterfeit goods may be evidence of a domain name not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Watts Water Technologies Inc. v. wo ci fa men zhi zao (kun shan) you xian gong si, FA 1740269 (Forum Aug. 11, 2017); see also Keihin Corp. v. Youli Ltd., FA 1106190 (Forum Dec. 18, 2007). (“Respondent has used the domain name to resolve to a website that mimics the color scheme associated with Complainant’s WATTS brand and displays counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products for purchase in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant… [therefore], the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). Complainant has provided screenshots of Respondent’s <wweticket.com> domain name’s resolving webpage that shows false tickets for events related to the mark for sale. The Panel finds that Respondent failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <wweticket.com> domain name in bad faith because the domain name contains Complainant’s trademark and strongly implies affiliation with Complainant, seemingly to derive profit. Use of a disputed domain name to create the impression that a respondent is affiliated with a complainant is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See BBY Solutions, Inc. v. Grant Ritzwoller, FA 1703389 (Forum Dec. 21, 2016) (finding bad faith because the <bestbuyus.com> domain name was obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known BEST BUY mark, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). Complainant has provided screenshots of Respondent’s <wweticket.com> domain name’s resolving webpage that shows false tickets for events related to the mark for sale. This is evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain to accept payment for fraudulent tickets constitutes phishing. Phishing involves the use of e-mails, pop-ups or other methods to trick Internet users into revealing credit cards, passwords, social security numbers and other personal information to the phishers who intend to use such information for fraudulent purposes, and may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers). Complainant has provided the Panel with screenshots of Respondent’s <wweticket.com> domain name’s resolving webpage that shows false tickets for events related to the mark for sale, and specifically showing its forms for the collection of financial information. This is evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues Respondent acted with constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WWE mark. While constructive notice alone is not enough to find bad faith, actual knowledge may be found based on the name used and respondent’s use of that name. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Fox International Channels (US), Inc. v. Daniel Pizlo / HS, FA1412001596020 (Forum Jan. 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent must have had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the FOX LIFE mark, where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to feature one of the complainant’s videos on its website, indicating that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Complainant argues Respondent was on notice of Complainant’s rights in the WWE mark because of fame and value of Complainant’s mark, the mark’s registration with many authorities, and Respondent using the mark to purportedly sell products of Complainant. The Panel finds, from the fame of the mark and use made of the domain name, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WWE mark and registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <wweticket.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist
December 9, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page