World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Austin Stierler
Claim Number: FA2201001981108
Complainant is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew C. Winterroth of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Connecticut, USA. Respondent is Austin Stierler (“Respondent”), Connecticut, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <wwecrownjewel.com>, <wwe205livetickets.com>, <wwe205live.com>, <wwerecruitinginfo.com>, <royalrumbletravel.com>, and <survivorseriestravel.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Steven M. Levy, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 19, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 19, 2022.
On January 20, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <wwecrownjewel.com>, <wwe205livetickets.com>, <wwe205live.com>, <wwerecruitinginfo.com>, <royalrumbletravel.com>, and <survivorseriestravel.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 January 20, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 9, 2022 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@wwecrownjewel.com, postmaster@wwe205livetickets.com, postmaster@wwe205live.com, postmaster@wwerecruitinginfo.com, postmaster@royalrumbletravel.com, postmaster@survivorseriestravel.com. Also on January 20, 2022, 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.
On February 16, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Steven M. Levy, Esq. 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, World Wresting Entertainment, Inc., utilizes the trademarks WWE, WWE CROWN JEWEL, 205 LIVE, ROYAL RUMBLE, and SURVIVOR SERIES in association with a global entertainment portfolio featuring programming featured on a variety of platforms and related merchandise using its marks. Complainant maintain registrations for the WWE, WWE CROWN JEWEL, 205 LIVE, ROYAL RUMBLE, and SURVIVOR SERIES marks with multiple authorities including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). Each of the <wwecrownjewel.com>, <wwe205livetickets.com>, <wwe205live.com>, <wwerecruitinginfo.com>, <royalrumbletravel.com>, and <survivorseriestravel.com> domain names is identical or confusingly similar to one or more of Complainant’s marks because it wholly incorporates one or more of the marks. In four of the domain names the terms “tickets”, “travel”, or “recruiting info” are added. All of the disputed domain names incorporate the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwecrownjewel.com>, <wwe205livetickets.com>, <wwe205live.com>, <wwerecruitinginfo.com>, <royalrumbletravel.com>, and <survivorseriestravel.com> domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by any of the domain names and Respondent has not been authorized to use any of Complainant’s marks. The disputed domain names are not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor does Respondent make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof. First, with regards to the <wwecrownjewel.com>, <wwerecruitinginfo.com>, <royalrumbletravel.com>, and <survivorseriestravel.com> domain names, Respondent diverts users to official websites operated by Complainant. With regard to the <wwe205livetickets.com> and <wwe205live.com> domain names, Respondent has not made any demonstrable preparations to use these two domain names and has passively held them.
Respondent registered and uses the <wwecrownjewel.com>, <wwe205livetickets.com>, <wwe205live.com>, <wwerecruitinginfo.com>, <royalrumbletravel.com>, and <survivorseriestravel.com> domain names in bad faith because Respondent registered multiple domain names in the present dispute. Furthermore, bad faith is found through Respondent either redirecting users to Complainant’s own websites or by its making no use or demonstrable preparations to use the domain names. Finally, Respondent acted with actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in Complainant’s marks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
- Complainant has demonstrated rights in the trademarks WWE, WWE CROWN JEWEL, 205 LIVE, ROYAL RUMBLE, and SURVIVOR SERIES.
- Each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to one or more of Complainant’s marks as it incorporates the marks and, in some cases adds generic words.
- Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to either automatically redirect users to one of Complainant’s own websites or to resolve to non-functioning websites does not create any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.
- Respondent’s actions indicate its actual knowledge of Complainant’s marks at the time it registered the disputed domain names and its use or non-use of the domain names, as described above, indicates 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 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 claims rights in the WWE, WWE CROWN JEWEL, 205 LIVE, ROYAL RUMBLE, and SURVIVOR SERIES marks through registration with multiple government authorities. Registration of a mark with a national authority is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Teleflex Incorporated v. Leisa Idalski, FA 1794131 (Forum July 31, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with governmental trademark agencies is sufficient to establish rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”) Complainant provides copies of some of its registration certificates for the WWE mark in the United States, China, and Hong Kong. It further provides a list of many other registrations of the WWE, WWE CROWN JEWEL, 205 LIVE, ROYAL RUMBLE, and SURVIVOR SERIES marks indicating multiple authorities worldwide. No certificates are provided for this latter group of registrations. While the Panel is reluctant to rely solely on a textual list of trademark registrations without direct supporting evidence (copies of certificates or at least screenshots from the respective trademark offices), the Respondent has not participated in these proceedings and so it does not contest Complainant’s claim of trademark rights and registrations. As such, the Panel finds it highly likely that Complainant does, in fact, have rights in the asserted WWE, WWE CROWN JEWEL, 205 LIVE, ROYAL RUMBLE, and SURVIVOR SERIES marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Next, Complainant argues that the <wwecrownjewel.com>, <wwe205livetickets.com>, <wwe205live.com>, <wwerecruitinginfo.com>, <royalrumbletravel.com>, and <survivorseriestravel.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar because each incorporates one, or more, of Complainant’s marks. In the case of four of these domain names, additional terms are incorporated such as “tickets”, “recruiting info”, or “travel”. All of the disputed domain names further add the “.com” gTLD. A domain name may be identical or confusingly similar to a Complainant’s mark, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), despite the addition of generic terms or a gTLD. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to one or more of Complainant’s marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that 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”).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwecrownjewel.com>, <wwe205livetickets.com>, <wwe205live.com>, <wwerecruitinginfo.com>, <royalrumbletravel.com>, and <survivorseriestravel.com> domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by any of the domain names. In considering this issue, a respondent may be found to not be commonly known by a domain name if the identifying WHOIS information is unrelated to the domain name and where a respondent is not authorized to use a complainant’s mark. See SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby’s v. Tony Yeh shiun, FA 1810835 (Forum Nov. 13, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the <sothebys.email> domain name where the WHOIS record identified Respondent as “Tony Yeh shiun,” Complainant never authorized or permitted Respondent to use the SOTHEBY’S mark, and Respondent failed to submit a response.). The WHOIS information for all of the domain names in the present dispute lists the registrant as “Austin Stierler”. Complainant asserts that Respondent has not received any license or consent to use Complainant’s marks. Therefore, in the absence of any statement from Respondent, the Panel finds no evidence that it is commonly known by the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant next argues that Respondent is not using the <wwecrownjewel.com>, <wwe205livetickets.com>, <wwe205live.com>, <wwerecruitinginfo.com>, <royalrumbletravel.com>, and <survivorseriestravel.com> domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and that it is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof because the domain names either redirect to Complainant’s own official websites or are inactively held. Evidence of a domain name not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), may be found where the domain name redirects users to a complainant’s own website or where it resolves to a blank or an error page. See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, ‘Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.’ Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain, FA 1337658 (Forum Sept. 8, 2010) (“The Panel finds that using Complainant’s mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant’s actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii) . . .”) Of the disputed domain names here at issue, <wwecrownjewel.com>, <wwerecruitinginfo.com>, <royalrumbletravel.com> and <survivorseriestravel.com> automatically redirect users to a live and official website operated by Complainant. The remaining two, <wwe205livetickets.com> and <wwe205live.com>, resolve to pages that display an error message saying that the website cannot be reached. Complainant provides screenshots for the resolution of each of the disputed domain names. In light of these facts and evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant has set out a prima facie case which has not been rebutted by Respondent. As such, the Panel finds no ground upon which to hold that Respondent is using any of the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
Complainant asserts that “Respondent is charged with constructive knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in the WWE Marks by virtue of Complainant’s many trademark registrations and pending trademark applications.” It goes on to say that “Respondent’s actual knowledge is shown by Respondent’s use of the domain names at issue”. Constructive knowledge is generally disfavored under the Policy unless it can be reliably demonstrated that both parties are subject to a national jurisdiction that applies such principle of law. See Leite’s Culinaria, Inc. v. Gary Cieara, D2014-0041 (WIPO Feb. 25, 2014) (where both parties reside in the United States, the Panel found that “under 15 USC §1072, registration of Complainant’s mark constitutes constructive notice of the mark.”) Although the WHOIS records for the disputed domain names provide United States addresses for Respondent, the same country in which Complainant has its headquarters, the Panel prefers to rely on Respondent’s actions in determining that actual knowledge of Complainant’s marks was present at the time the domain names were registered. By auto-redirecting most of the disputed domain names to Complainant’s own official websites, and by registering a number of domain names that are confusingly similar to multiple marks owned by Complainant, Respondent has demonstrated its familiarity with the affected marks. The Panel thus concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s marks at the time the disputed domain names were registered.
Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <wwecrownjewel.com>, <wwe205livetickets.com>, <wwe205live.com>, <wwerecruitinginfo.com>, <royalrumbletravel.com>, and <survivorseriestravel.com> domain names in bad faith because Respondent either inactively holds the domain names or the domain names redirect users to Complainant’s own websites. As the examples set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are non-exclusive, bad faith may still be found under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) taking into account all of the circumstances of a given case, even where the facts do not neatly fit into one of the examples. See, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are merely illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances). Where a respondent inactively holds a domain name or where the domain name redirects to a complainant’s own website bad faith may be found. See Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant’s own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA 1522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent’s website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message “Error 400- Bad Request,” the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpages which either display an error message, on two of the domain names, or display one of Complainant’s own websites on the remaining four. As Respondent has not filed a Response or made any other submission in this case to explain its actions, upon a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered and uses the <wwecrownjewel.com>, <wwe205livetickets.com>, <wwe205live.com>, <wwerecruitinginfo.com>, <royalrumbletravel.com>, and <survivorseriestravel.com> domain names in bad faith because Respondent registered multiple domain names in the present dispute as part of a pattern of conduct. Registration of multiple domain names making use of a complainant’s marks in a single dispute may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See United States Postal Service v. Yongkun Wang, FA 1788170 (Forum July 11, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter as evidenced by its registering four separate domain names all incorporating Complainant’s USPS mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Six domain names are implicated in the current dispute. According to the concerned registrar, Respondent is the same registrant for all six of these domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds further support for its conclusion that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wwecrownjewel.com>, <wwe205livetickets.com>, <wwe205live.com>, <wwerecruitinginfo.com>, <royalrumbletravel.com>, and <survivorseriestravel.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Steven M. Levy, Esq., Panelist
Dated: February 23, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page