national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Jessica Lee

Claim Number: FA1409001579948

PARTIES

Complainant is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew C. Winterroth of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Connecticut, USA.  Respondent is Jessica Lee (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ozwwe.com>, registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 16, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 17, 2014.

 

On September 17, 2014, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ozwwe.com> domain name is registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  GODADDY.COM, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GODADDY.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 September 18, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 8, 2014 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@ozwwe.com.  Also on September 18, 2014, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On October 15, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

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 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 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.    Respondent’s <ozwwe.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WWE mark.

 

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ozwwe.com> domain name.

 

3.    Respondent registered and uses the <ozwwe.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, World Wrestling Entertainment, owns the WWE mark and holds multiple United States Patent and Trademark (“USPTO”) trademark registrations, including Registration No. 2,772,683, registered Oct. 7, 2003.

 

Respondent registered the <ozwwe.com> domain name on August 4, 2013, and uses it to promote counterfeit WWE goods.

 

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(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.”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

This Panel finds that Complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO illustrate Complainant’s rights in the WWE mark for its wrestling entertainment business.  See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”).

 

Respondent’s <ozwwe.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s WWE mark and simply adds the generic “oz” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  These changes do not create a meaningful distinction between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark.  See Cargill, Incorporated v. Domain Privacy Grp., FA 1501652 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jul. 5, 2013) (determining that the disputed domain name, which contains the complainant’s mark, along with two generic terms and a generic top-level domain, is the equivalent of the mark itself for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).  Thus, the Panel finds that the <ozwwe.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WWE mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.  See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light.  If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the name <ozwwe.com>.  The WHOIS record lists the registrant of the domain name as “Jessica Lee.”  The Panel finds that there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by this domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (“Considering the nonsensical nature of the [<wwwmedline.com>] domain name and its similarity to Complainant’s registered and distinctive [MEDLINE] mark, the Panel concludes that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent.”).

 

Complainant shows that the <ozwwe.com> domain name is used to promote an online store wherein counterfeit WWE goods are available for purchase.  The Panel finds that this use falls outside the protections of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), and does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services.  See eLuxury.com Inc. v. WangJunJie, FA 1075554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 30, 2007) (concluding that the sale of counterfeit products is evidence that the respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant argues that Internet users will suffer confusion as to Complainant’s association with the counterfeit goods offered by Respondent at <ozwwe.com>.  The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent is profiting from a likelihood of confusion and thus acting in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith.  See Affliction, Inc. v. Chinasupply, FA 1223521 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 23, 2008) (finding that the respondent attempts to commercially gain by creating confusion as to the complainant’s connection with the website by selling counterfeit products).

 

Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the <ozwwe.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WWE mark.  The Panel agrees, as the disputed domain name is used to offer counterfeit goods bearing the WWE mark, and finds that this constitutes Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.  See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated:  October 20, 2014

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page