World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Irfan Ali
Claim Number: FA1506001623202
Complainant is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew C. Winterroth of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Connecticut, USA. Respondent is Irfan Ali ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <rawandsmackdown.com>, registered with Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA.
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 June 8, 2015; the Forum received payment on June 11, 2015.
On June 8, 2015, Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA confirmed by email to the Forum that the <rawandsmackdown.com> domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA has verified that Respondent is bound by the Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA 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 June 11, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 1, 2015 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@rawandsmackdown.com. Also on June 11, 2015, 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 July 8, 2015, 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 entertainment services and consumer products throughout the world. Complainant maintains offices in several countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. Its programming is broadcast in more than 145 countries, reaching more than 500 million homes. Complainant's programs include "Monday Night RAW" and "Friday Night SMACKDOWN." Complainant uses various trademarks in connection with its goods and services, including RAW and SMACKDOWN, both of which are the subject of trademark registrations in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other jurisdictions.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <rawandsmackdown.com> is confusingly similar to its RAW and SMACKDOWN marks; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In support thereof, Complainant states that Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant, has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's marks, and is not known by the disputed domain name. Complainant states further that the domain name is being used for a website that displays pay-per-click advertisements and allows users to view unauthorized copies of Complainant's copyrighted content, thereby diverting revenue from Complainant and its video partners.
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 has been 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(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.").
The disputed domain name combines two of Complainant's registered trademarks, RAW and SMACKDOWN, inserting only the conjunction "and" between them, and adding the ".com" top-level domain name. These alterations do not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's marks. See, e.g., Lorillard Licensing Co. v. safd / sdfdf; sdf / sdf d; sd / d df, FA 1530394 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2013) (finding <marlboroandnewportcigarettes.com> confusingly similar to NEWPORT); World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. DIR Enterprises, LLC, D2006-1605 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2007) (finding <smackdownmagazine.com> confusingly similar to SMACKDOWN); Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Null, D2002-0937 (WIPO Nov. 27, 2002) (finding <bmwx5.com> identical or confusingly similar to BMW and X5). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is 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 Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name combines two of Complainant's registered marks, and is being used to generate profits by enabling unauthorized viewing of Complainant's copyrighted 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. See Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc. v. Nikola Pesic a/k/a Home, FA 1236018 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 20, 2009) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests under similar circumstances).
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been 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 has registered and is using a domain name containing Complainant's registered marks for a website that enables unauthorized viewing of Complainant's copyrighted content, and presumably is profiting from this use. The Panel considers this to be a clear instance of bad faith registration and use under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., supra (finding bad faith under similar circumstances).
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rawandsmackdown.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 9, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page