World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. wwe client
Claim Number: FA2006001899105
PARTIES
Complainant is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew C. Winterroth of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Connecticut, USA. Respondent is wwe client ("Respondent"), Unknown.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wweclient.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 5, 2020; the Forum received payment on June 5, 2020.
On June 8, 2020, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <wweclient.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 June 9, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 29, 2020 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@wweclient.com. Also on June 9, 2020, 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.
A timely Response was received on June 11, 2020. The Response was unsigned and did not include the name, postal and email addresses, or telephone number of Respondent or Respondent's representative, nor the certification statement required by Paragraph 5(c)(viii) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules").
On June 15, 2020, 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 "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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
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 adopting the World Wrestling Entertainment name in 2002 and subsequently rebranding itself WWE in 2011. Complainant owns trademark registrations for WWE and related marks in the United States and many other jurisdictions. Complainant asserts that its 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).
The disputed domain name <wweclient.com> was registered through a privacy registration service in July 2018. The underlying registration data (provided by Wild West Domains, LLC, upon commencement of this proceeding) identify the registrant as "wwe client" with a Gmail address and what appears to be fictitious contact information. The domain name is being used for a website that displays the WWE mark and Complainant's distinctive logo. The site promotes "WWE Utility Mod" software; it also solicits "donations" and offers "WWE Client Coins" for sale. Complainant alleges that the site is part of an operation that allows users to download unauthorized video game content marketed with Complainant's marks. Complainant states further 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 <wweclient.com> is confusingly similar to its WWE mark; 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
The unsigned and uncertified statement received from Respondent states as follows:
I’m very sorry that this issue has happened. This domain was created for a friend of mine, who makes Minecraft (a game) mods (modifications). This project was all for fun & we did not try to mislead people by making them think we were connected to WWE. The name WWE was used as the creator of those modifications is a big fan of the show and genuinly watches it. I’ve removed the domain and I hope that is all that will be needed. Again, I’m very very sorry that his happened.
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 is being 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.
The disputed domain name <wweclient.com> incorporates Complainant's registered WWE trademark, adding the generic term "client" and appending the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1893019 (Forum May 18, 2020) (finding <wwwenetwork.com> confusingly similar to WWE); AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. v. Fatal Technologies / Jackson Hewitt, FA 1355352 (Forum Dec. 13, 2010) (finding <attnetclient.net> confusingly similar to ATT.NET). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be 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 Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used to attract Internet users to a commercial website that displays Complainant's mark and logo (far beyond any extent that might be permissible as a nominative fair use) and allegedly facilitates unauthorized access to Complainant's licensed content. Such conduct does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, supra (finding lack of rights or interests where WWE mark was used for website displaying Complainant's marks and links to unauthorized copies of Complainant's content).
The Panel does not attribute any weight to the unsigned and uncertified statement received from Respondent, and notes that the statement effectively disavows any rights or interests in the domain name.
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.
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 registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's famous mark, and is using it (along with Complainant's distinctive logo) to solicit payments and promote unrelated, competing, or infringing services. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, supra. The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wweclient.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 19, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page