DECISION

 

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Ahmet Mehmer

Claim Number: FA2112001976896

 

PARTIES

Complainant is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew C. Winterroth of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Connecticut, USA Respondent is Ahmet Mehmer ("Respondent"), Turkey.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wwesmackdown.biz>, registered with Sav.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 13, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 13, 2021.

 

On December 14, 2021, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <wwesmackdown.biz> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.com, 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 December 15, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 4, 2022 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@wwesmackdown.biz. Also on December 15, 2021, 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 January 10, 2022, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant promotes retail and entertainment services and consumer products throughout the world. Its programming is broadcast in more than 145 countries, reaching more than 500 million homes. Complainant has used WWE and related marks in connection with its services and products since 2002, and owns trademark registrations for WWE in the United States, Turkey, and many other jurisdictions. Complainant asserts that the WWE mark has become famous and has been recognized as such in a previous proceeding under the Policy. See World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Damn Crise, FA 1662389 (Forum Mar. 15, 2016). Complainant also uses and owns trademark registrations for various other marks, including SMACKDOWN.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <wwesmackdown.biz> via a privacy registration service in September 2021. The domain name is being used for a website that contains sexually explicit images and promotes illegal escort services. Complainant states that Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant, is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's marks, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <wwesmackdown.biz> is confusingly similar to its WWE and SMACKDOWN marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to one or more marks 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 is being used in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <wwesmackdown.biz> combines Complainant's registered WWE and SMACKDOWN trademarks, appending the ".biz" top-level domain. This addition does not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's marks. See, e.g., World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. WWE Client, FA 1899105 (Forum June 19, 2020) (finding <wweclient.com> confusingly similar to WWE); World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Irfan Ali, FA 1623202 (Forum July 9, 2015) (finding <rawandsmackdown.com> confusingly similar to RAW and SMACKDOWN); Target Brands, Inc. v. Dmitri Romanov, FA 156249 (Forum June 2, 2003) (finding <targetstore.biz> confusingly similar to TARGET). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to one or more marks in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered marks without authorization, and it is being used for a sexually explicit website that promotes unlawful escort services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1697069 (Forum Nov. 23, 2016) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Kraft Pizza Co. & Kraft Foods Holdings, Inc. v. Stealth Commerce a/k/a Telmex Management Services a/k/a Lost in Space, SA a/k/a Drevil, FA 113289 (Forum June 17, 2002) (same).

 

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.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being 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 used a privacy registration service to register a domain name combining two of Complainant's registered marks without authorization, and is using the domain name for a sexually explicit website that promotes unlawful escort services. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Kraft Pizza Co. & Kraft Foods Holdings, Inc., supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wwesmackdown.biz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: January 13, 2022

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page