Ticket Software LLC v. Alichec Inc. c/o Brett Alichec a/k/a Argosweb Corp c/o Oleg Techino a/k/a Balram Brahmin c/o Balram Brahmin a/k/a Belroots Pty Ltd c/o Luis de Carvalho a/k/a Chin-Hui Wu c/o Chin-Hui Wu a/k/a Crystal Image Pty Ltd c/o Antonio Marques a/k/a David Ghou c/o David Ghou a/k/a Denesh Kumar c/o Denesh Kumar a/k/a Denholm Borg c/o Denholm Borg a/k/a Elarson & Associates Pty Ltd c/o Eric Larson a/k/a Domain Administrator a/k/a Lidnick Webcorp c/o Lidnick Webcorp a/k/a Liquid SEO Limited c/o Julian Greenberg a/k/a Loshedina Inc c/o Xi Na a/k/a Luchichang Pty Ltd c/o Luchichang Pty Ltd Luchichang Pty Ltd a/k/a Marcelos Vainez c/o Marcelos Vainez a/k/a Netmilo c/o Stoyan Bagdanov a/k/a Orel Hlasek LLC c/o Orel Hlasek a/k/a Vlad Obchikov c/o Vlad Obchikov a/k/a Volchar Pty Ltd c/o Domain Administrator a/k/a Web Pescados LLC c/o Augustine Rivera a/k/a Webatopia Marketing Limited c/o Michael Short a/k/a Alex Ovechkin a/k/a WuWeb Pty Ltd c/o Michael Chung Wu a/k/a ZincFusion Limited c/o Vivian Cox
Claim Number: FA1007001337665
Complainant is Ticket
Software LLC (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., Californian,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <ticketnetwrok.com>, <tickettnetwork.com>, <ticketnetork.com>, <ticketnetwrk.com>, <tickenetwork.com>, <icketnetwork.com>, <ticketetwork.com>, <ticketnettwork.com>, <ticketneetwork.com>, <ticketnetworl.com>, <ticketnetworrk.com>, <ticketnetwoork.com>, <ticketnetwokr.com>, <ticketnnetwork.com>, <ticketnetwok.com>, <ticketnewtork.com>, <tickketnetwork.com>, <tickentetwork.com>, <tticketnetwork.com>, <tickeetnetwork.com>, <ticketnetowrk.com>, <itcketnetwork.com>, <ticcketnetwork.com>, <ticketntework.com>, <ticketnetwwork.com>, <ticketentwork.com>, <tiicketnetwork.com>, <ticketntwork.com>, <ticketnework.com>, <ticktnetwork.com>, <ticktenetwork.com>, <ticketnetworkk.com>, and <ticketnetwor.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 27, 2010.
On July 29, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ticketnetwrok.com>, <tickettnetwork.com>, <ticketnetork.com>, <ticketnetwrk.com>, <tickenetwork.com>, <icketnetwork.com>, <ticketetwork.com>, <ticketnettwork.com>, <ticketneetwork.com>, <ticketnetworl.com>, <ticketnetworrk.com>, <ticketnetwoork.com>, <ticketnetwokr.com>, <ticketnnetwork.com>, <ticketnetwok.com>, <ticketnewtork.com>, <tickketnetwork.com>, <tickentetwork.com>, <tticketnetwork.com>, <tickeetnetwork.com>, <ticketnetowrk.com>, <itcketnetwork.com>, <ticcketnetwork.com>, <ticketntework.com>, <ticketnetwwork.com>, <ticketentwork.com>, <tiicketnetwork.com>, <ticketntwork.com>, <ticketnework.com>, <ticktnetwork.com>, <ticktenetwork.com>, <ticketnetworkk.com>, and <ticketnetwor.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On August 4, 2010, the Forum served
the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint,
setting a deadline of August 24, 2010 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@ticketnetwrok.com,
postmaster@tickettnetwork.com,
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 1, 2010, pursuant to
Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the
National Arbitration Forum appointed
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <ticketnetwrok.com>, <tickettnetwork.com>, <ticketnetork.com>, <ticketnetwrk.com>, <tickenetwork.com>, <icketnetwork.com>, <ticketetwork.com>, <ticketnettwork.com>, <ticketneetwork.com>, <ticketnetworl.com>, <ticketnetworrk.com>, <ticketnetwoork.com>, <ticketnetwokr.com>, <ticketnnetwork.com>, <ticketnetwok.com>, <ticketnewtork.com>, <tickketnetwork.com>, <tickentetwork.com>, <tticketnetwork.com>, <tickeetnetwork.com>, <ticketnetowrk.com>, <itcketnetwork.com>, <ticcketnetwork.com>, <ticketntework.com>, <ticketnetwwork.com>, <ticketentwork.com>, <tiicketnetwork.com>, <ticketntwork.com>, <ticketnework.com>, <ticktnetwork.com>, <ticktenetwork.com>, <ticketnetworkk.com>, and <ticketnetwor.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TICKETNETWORK mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ticketnetwrok.com>, <tickettnetwork.com>, <ticketnetork.com>, <ticketnetwrk.com>, <tickenetwork.com>, <icketnetwork.com>, <ticketetwork.com>, <ticketnettwork.com>, <ticketneetwork.com>, <ticketnetworl.com>, <ticketnetworrk.com>, <ticketnetwoork.com>, <ticketnetwokr.com>, <ticketnnetwork.com>, <ticketnetwok.com>, <ticketnewtork.com>, <tickketnetwork.com>, <tickentetwork.com>, <tticketnetwork.com>, <tickeetnetwork.com>, <ticketnetowrk.com>, <itcketnetwork.com>, <ticcketnetwork.com>, <ticketntework.com>, <ticketnetwwork.com>, <ticketentwork.com>, <tiicketnetwork.com>, <ticketntwork.com>, <ticketnework.com>, <ticktnetwork.com>, <ticktenetwork.com>, <ticketnetworkk.com>, and <ticketnetwor.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <ticketnetwrok.com>, <tickettnetwork.com>, <ticketnetork.com>, <ticketnetwrk.com>, <tickenetwork.com>, <icketnetwork.com>, <ticketetwork.com>, <ticketnettwork.com>, <ticketneetwork.com>, <ticketnetworl.com>, <ticketnetworrk.com>, <ticketnetwoork.com>, <ticketnetwokr.com>, <ticketnnetwork.com>, <ticketnetwok.com>, <ticketnewtork.com>, <tickketnetwork.com>, <tickentetwork.com>, <tticketnetwork.com>, <tickeetnetwork.com>, <ticketnetowrk.com>, <itcketnetwork.com>, <ticcketnetwork.com>, <ticketntework.com>, <ticketnetwwork.com>, <ticketentwork.com>, <tiicketnetwork.com>, <ticketntwork.com>, <ticketnework.com>, <ticktnetwork.com>, <ticktenetwork.com>, <ticketnetworkk.com>, and <ticketnetwor.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Ticket Software LLC, provides event ticket sales as well as technology for ticket buyers and sellers that supplies more than $1 billion in ticket inventory to the public. Complainant owns a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its TICKETNETWORK mark (Reg. No. 2,956,502 issued May 31, 2005).
Respondent, Alichec Inc. c/o Brett Alichec et. al. registered the <ticketnetwrok.com>, <tickettnetwork.com>, <ticketnetork.com>, <ticketnetwrk.com>, <tickenetwork.com>, <icketnetwork.com>, <ticketetwork.com>, <ticketnettwork.com>, <ticketneetwork.com>, <ticketnetworl.com>, <ticketnetworrk.com>, <ticketnetwoork.com>, <ticketnetwokr.com>, <ticketnnetwork.com>, <ticketnetwok.com>, <ticketnewtork.com>, <tickketnetwork.com>, <tickentetwork.com>, <tticketnetwork.com>, <tickeetnetwork.com>, <ticketnetowrk.com>, <itcketnetwork.com>, <ticcketnetwork.com>, <ticketntework.com>, <ticketnetwwork.com>, <ticketentwork.com>, <tiicketnetwork.com>, <ticketntwork.com>, <ticketnework.com>, <ticktnetwork.com>, <ticktenetwork.com>, <ticketnetworkk.com>, and <ticketnetwor.com> domain names on December 8, 2008 and December 10, 2008. Respondent’s disputed domain names redirect Internet users to Complainant’s official <ticketnetwork.com> website through Complainant’s affiliate program.
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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Preliminary
Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” The Panel finds that Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to indicate that the multiple entities identified in the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names are controlling the disputed domain names as one entity. Therefore, the Panel will proceed with the instant proceedings as if the named entities are operating as one to control the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated rights in its TICKETNETWORK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through evidence of its trademark registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,956,502 issued May 31, 2005). See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO). The Panel further finds that Complainant does not need to own a trademark registration within Respondent’s listed country of residence to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Complainant contends that the <ticketnetwrok.com>, <tickettnetwork.com>, <ticketnetork.com>, <ticketnetwrk.com>, <tickenetwork.com>, <icketnetwork.com>, <ticketetwork.com>, <ticketnettwork.com>, <ticketneetwork.com>, <ticketnetworl.com>, <ticketnetworrk.com>, <ticketnetwoork.com>, <ticketnetwokr.com>, <ticketnnetwork.com>, <ticketnetwok.com>, <ticketnewtork.com>, <tickketnetwork.com>, <tickentetwork.com>, <tticketnetwork.com>, <tickeetnetwork.com>, <ticketnetowrk.com>, <itcketnetwork.com>, <ticcketnetwork.com>, <ticketntework.com>, <ticketnetwwork.com>, <ticketentwork.com>, <tiicketnetwork.com>, <ticketntwork.com>, <ticketnework.com>, <ticktnetwork.com>, <ticktenetwork.com>, <ticketnetworkk.com>, and <ticketnetwor.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TICKETNETWORK mark because each domain name contains a misspelled version of the mark and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Previous panels have found confusing similarity with a trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) where the domain name is simply a misspelled version of Complainant’s mark, and so this Panel finds. Further, the Panel finds that adding a gTLD is not relevant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because every domain name must have a gTLD such as “.com.” See The Royal Bank of Scotland Grp. plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (“The Panel finds that merely by misspelling Complainants’ mark, Respondent has not sufficiently differentiated the <privelage.com> domain name from the PRIVILEGE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that the domain names <beanybaby.com>, <beaniesbabies.com>, <beanybabies.com> are confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark BEANIE BABIES); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent does not have any rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations. Once Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it possesses rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”). The Panel finds that the Complainant has produced a prima facie case. Due to the Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond). The Panel, however, will examine the record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use its TICKETNETWORK mark in any way. The WHOIS information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names and there is no further evidence on record that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the <ticketnetwrok.com>, <tickettnetwork.com>,
<ticketnetork.com>, <ticketnetwrk.com>,
<tickenetwork.com>, <icketnetwork.com>,
<ticketetwork.com>, <ticketnettwork.com>,
<ticketneetwork.com>, <ticketnetworl.com>,
<ticketnetworrk.com>, <ticketnetwoork.com>,
<ticketnetwokr.com>, <ticketnnetwork.com>,
<ticketnetwok.com>, <ticketnewtork.com>,
<tickketnetwork.com>, <tickentetwork.com>,
<tticketnetwork.com>, <tickeetnetwork.com>,
<ticketnetowrk.com>, <itcketnetwork.com>,
<ticcketnetwork.com>, <ticketntework.com>,
<ticketnetwwork.com>, <ticketentwork.com>,
<tiicketnetwork.com>, <ticketntwork.com>,
<ticketnework.com>, <ticktnetwork.com>,
<ticktenetwork.com>, <ticketnetworkk.com>, and
<ticketnetwor.com> domain names to redirect Internet users to
Complainant’s official <ticketnetwork.com> website. Complainant argues that Respondent is sending
Internet users to Complainant’s website through Complainant’s affiliate
program, in direct violation of the affiliate agreement. Complainant contends that such use of the
confusingly similar domain names is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the domain names.
The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain
names to redirect Internet user to Complainant’s official website, in violation
of its affiliate program, is not a bona fide
offering of goods or services contemplated under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)
or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
Sports
Respondent registered the <ticketnetwrok.com>, <tickettnetwork.com>, <ticketnetork.com>, <ticketnetwrk.com>, <tickenetwork.com>, <icketnetwork.com>, <ticketetwork.com>, <ticketnettwork.com>, <ticketneetwork.com>, <ticketnetworl.com>, <ticketnetworrk.com>, <ticketnetwoork.com>, <ticketnetwokr.com>, <ticketnnetwork.com>, <ticketnetwok.com>, <ticketnewtork.com>, <tickketnetwork.com>, <tickentetwork.com>, <tticketnetwork.com>, <tickeetnetwork.com>, <ticketnetowrk.com>, <itcketnetwork.com>, <ticcketnetwork.com>, <ticketntework.com>, <ticketnetwwork.com>, <ticketentwork.com>, <tiicketnetwork.com>, <ticketntwork.com>, <ticketnework.com>, <ticktnetwork.com>, <ticktenetwork.com>, <ticketnetworkk.com>, and <ticketnetwor.com> domain names which all contain misspelled versions of Complainant’s TICKETNETWORK mark. Previous panels have found that domain names containing misspelled versions of a complainant’s mark indicate respondent’s engagement in typosquatting and is further evidence of respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain names. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”); see also LTD Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain names were intentional misspellings of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitutes typosquatting and is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant
argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet
users to Complainant’s official <ticketnetwork.com> website in order to
take advantage of Complainant’s affiliate program. Complainant contends that such use is further
evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain
names. The Panel agrees and finds that
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to
Complainant’s official website, in violation of its affiliate program, is
evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of such under Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See Cricket
Communc’ns, Inc. v. Oliver, FA 954005 (Nat. Arb. Forum May
29, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent
registered domain names containing the Complainant’s Mark after enrolling in
the complainant’s affiliate program); see also Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas
Internet, FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding the respondent
registered and used the <deluxeform.com> domain name in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by redirecting its users to the complainant’s
deluxeforms.com> domain name, thus receiving a commission from the complainant
through its affiliate program).
The Panel previously determined that Respondent’s registration and use of the <ticketnetwrok.com>, <tickettnetwork.com>, <ticketnetork.com>, <ticketnetwrk.com>, <tickenetwork.com>, <icketnetwork.com>, <ticketetwork.com>, <ticketnettwork.com>, <ticketneetwork.com>, <ticketnetworl.com>, <ticketnetworrk.com>, <ticketnetwoork.com>, <ticketnetwokr.com>, <ticketnnetwork.com>, <ticketnetwok.com>, <ticketnewtork.com>, <tickketnetwork.com>, <tickentetwork.com>, <tticketnetwork.com>, <tickeetnetwork.com>, <ticketnetowrk.com>, <itcketnetwork.com>, <ticcketnetwork.com>, <ticketntework.com>, <ticketnetwwork.com>, <ticketentwork.com>, <tiicketnetwork.com>, <ticketntwork.com>, <ticketnework.com>, <ticktnetwork.com>, <ticktenetwork.com>, <ticketnetworkk.com>, and <ticketnetwor.com> domain names constituted typosquatting. The Panel further finds that Respondent’s typosquatting behavior is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nextel Commc’ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name epitomized typosquatting in its purest form); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ticketnetwrok.com>, <tickettnetwork.com>, <ticketnetork.com>, <ticketnetwrk.com>, <tickenetwork.com>, <icketnetwork.com>, <ticketetwork.com>, <ticketnettwork.com>, <ticketneetwork.com>, <ticketnetworl.com>, <ticketnetworrk.com>, <ticketnetwoork.com>, <ticketnetwokr.com>, <ticketnnetwork.com>, <ticketnetwok.com>, <ticketnewtork.com>, <tickketnetwork.com>, <tickentetwork.com>, <tticketnetwork.com>, <tickeetnetwork.com>, <ticketnetowrk.com>, <itcketnetwork.com>, <ticcketnetwork.com>, <ticketntework.com>, <ticketnetwwork.com>, <ticketentwork.com>, <tiicketnetwork.com>, <ticketntwork.com>, <ticketnework.com>, <ticktnetwork.com>, <ticktenetwork.com>, <ticketnetworkk.com>, and <ticketnetwor.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: September 2, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum