DECISION

 

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Dung Nguyen

Claim Number: FA1611001701954

PARTIES

Complainant is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew C. Winterroth of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Connecticut, USA.  Respondent is Dung Nguyen (“Respondent”), Vietnam.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wweo.info> (‘the Domain Name’)  registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that 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.

 

Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs IP as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 8, 2016; the Forum received payment on November 8, 2016.

 

On November 9, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <wweo.info> 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 November 9, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 29, 2016 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@wweo.info.  Also on November 9, 2016, 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 December 1, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs IP  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’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

 

Complainant is a leader in global entertainment and owns and uses the WWE marks for retail and entertainment services and consumer products. The WWE marks were first filed in 2002 in the USA and registrations have been obtained across the world including China and Hong Kong. It is the owner of wwe.com, wwe8.com and wwe.co.in and provides full length programme episodes and short clips on its web site and through video partners and otherwise does not allow its audio visual programming on web sites.  It has two long running successful television programmes, RAW and SMACKDOWN, and from 2014 has had its own channel titled the WWE Network. The WWE mark has been found to be famous in domain name dispute proceedings.

 

The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s WWE mark in its entirety along with the single letter ‘o’. Previous panels have held that the addition of a single letter does not create a distinct mark.

 

Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and Respondent has not received any permission to use the WWE mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name.

 

The Domain Name was registered in 2016 in bad faith long after first registration and use of the WWE mark by Complainant in 2002. The site attached to the Domain Name redirects to a web site which displays links to hosted and live/streamed pay per view and WWE Network content for which Respondent does not have authorisation to offer or display and displays Complainant’s trademarks prominently. Customers will assume that it is an official site when it is not. It has also been used for pay per click links. The content on the site proves Respondent knows about Complainant and its business. Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its web sites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the WWE marks as to the source or endorsement of services on Respondent’s web site. Respondent has registered at least three other domain names using the WWE marks in the past. This is a pattern of activity which also amounts to bad faith under the Policy.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a leader in global entertainment and owns and uses the WWE mark for retail and entertainment services and consumer products. The WWE mark was first filed in 2002 in the USA and registrations have been obtained across the world including China and Hong Kong. Complainant is the owner of, inter alia,  wwe.com and provides full length programme episodes and short clips on its web site and through video partners. 

 

The Domain Name registered in 2016 has been used to provide unlicensed programme material of Complainant, uses Complainant’s trade marks in the content of the site and has been used for pay per click links.

 

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 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 (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 or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of Complainant's WWE mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for entertainment services and has been used since 2002), the single letter ‘o’ and the gTLD .info. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a single letter to a Complainant's mark. See Am. Online Inc. v Tencent Commc’ns Corp, FA 93668 (Forum Mar. 21, 2000)(finding that the addition of a single letter ‘o’ did not avoid confusing similarity with Complainant’s mark) The  Panel agrees that the addition of the single letter ‘o’  to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.

 

The gTLD .info does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the UBS mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to Complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. Respondent uses Complainant’s famous trademarks on its site. Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest Respondent is, in fact commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

The web site attached to the Domain Name uses Complainant's trademarks and Respondent is using the site in competition with Complainant.  It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.)

 

As such the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant also alleges that Respondent's use of the site attached to the Domain Name is commercial and it is using it to make a profit by competing with Complainant in a confusing and disruptive manner. In the opinion of the Panel, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by Complainant, as it offers competing services under a Domain Name containing Complainant’s WWE mark.  The use of Complainant's marks on Respondent's web site shows that Respondent is aware of Complainant and its business. Accordingly, the Panel holds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of services offered on the web site likely to disrupt the business of Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with Complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). See also Jerie v Burian, FA 795430 (Forum Oct 30, 2006)(concluding that the respondent registered and used the sportlivescore.com domain name in order to disrupt the complainant’s business under the LIVESCORE mark because the respondent was maintaining a web site in direct competition with Complainant).

 

As such, the Panel believes that Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iv) and 4 (b)(iii). There is no necessity, therefore, to consider additional contentions made by Complainant as to bad faith due to a pattern of activity.

 

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 <wweo.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated:  December 5, 2016