World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. EventBlgoPRO / Sadiqur Rahman
Claim Number: FA1905001841783
Complainant is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew C. Winterroth of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Connecticut, USA. Respondent is EventBlgoPRO / Sadiqur Rahman (“Respondent”), Bangladesh.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wrestlemania-wwe.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
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 Einhorn appointed as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 6, 2019; the Forum received payment on May 6, 2019.
On May 6, 2019, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <wrestlemania-wwe.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 May 7, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 28, 2019 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@wrestlemania-wwe.com. Also on May 7, 2019, 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 May 29, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David A. Einhorn 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 operates World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“WWE”), an integrated media organization and recognized leader in global entertainment, known for Monday Night RAW and Friday Night SMACKDOWN programming. Complainant has rights in the WRESTLEMANIA mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,432,884, registered Mar. 17, 1987). Complainant also has rights in the WWE mark based upon its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,772,683, registered Oct. 7, 2003). Respondent’s <wrestlemania-wwe.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WRESTLEMANIA and WWE marks because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s WRESTLEMANIA and WWE marks, and merely adds a hyphen and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <wrestlemania-wwe.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s WRESTLEMANIA and WWE marks and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website offering for sale unlicensed content produced by Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <wrestlemania-wwe.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain name where Respondent offers for sale unlicensed content produced by Complainant, disrupting Complainant’s business. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s WRESTLEMANIA and WWE marks prior to registering the disputed domain name based on Respondent’s use of Complainant’s marks on the resolving webpage.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response. The Panel notes that Respondent registered the <wrestlemania-wwe.com> domain name on March 3, 2019.
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 WRESTLEMANIA mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,432,884, registered Mar. 17, 1987). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).”) Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the WRESTLEMANIA mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant also asserts rights in the WWE mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,772,683, registered Oct. 7, 2003). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the WWE mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Next, Complainant argues that Respondent’s <wrestlemania-wwe.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WRESTLEMANIA and WWE marks because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s WRESTLEMANIA and WWE marks, and merely adds a hyphen and the “.com” gTLD. The additions of a hyphen and gTLD to a combination of marks are insufficient to overcome a claim of confusing similarity. See NSK LTD. v. Xu Yan / ChangZhou City Thinker Network Technology Co., Ltd., FA 1709111 (Forum Jan. 31, 2017) (“The disputed domain name combines both of Complainant’s RHP and NSK marks, with a hyphen added between them… creating confusing similarity.”). Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WRESTLEMANIA and WWE marks.
Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <wrestlemania-wwe.com> domain name because Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s WRESTLEMANIA and WWE marks and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is absent, WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”). Complainant provides WHOIS information for Respondent indicating Respondent is known as “EventBlgoPRO / Sadiqur Rahman” and no information of the record indicates that Respondent was authorized to use the Complainant’s WRESTLEMANIA and WWE marks. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Next, Complainant argues Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website offering for sale unlicensed content produced by Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to offer unlawful content for download or streaming is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Alex Dori, FA 1623672 (Forum July 13, 2015) (“Given that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer illegal content for download and streaming, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Complainant has therefore satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <wrestlemania-wwe.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain name where Respondent offers for sale unlicensed content produced by Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to sell unauthorized versions of a complainant’s products can be disruptive of a complainant’s business and thus constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Kipling Apparel Corp. v. Yan Feng Geng, FA 1703296 (Forum Dec. 20, 2016) (finding the respondent registered and used the <kiplingstores.com> domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because the respondent used the domain name to sell the complainant’s products that were either counterfeit or genuine products resold without authorization). A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to divert users and derive profit is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to allow Internet users to watch unlicensed video material copyrighted and monetized by Complainant and that users may be confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name. Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Further, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registration and that this constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Here, Complainant registered the WRESTLEMANIA and WWE marks in 1987 and 2003 respectively, both long in advance of the disputed domain’s registration on March 3, 2019. Additionally, Respondent uses Complainant’s mark on the resolving webpage. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the WRESTLEMANIA and WWE marks, which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Thus, Complainant has therefore also satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wrestlemania-wwe.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David A. Einhorn, Panelist
Dated: June 7, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page