DECISION

 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Joanne Donoghue

Claim Number: FA2602002206242

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Annie S. Wang-Poloskov of Wang Law Corporation, United States. Respondent is Joanne Donoghue ("Respondent"), Ireland.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <warnerbros-tour.com>, registered with Realtime Register B.V.

 

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 Forum electronically on February 19, 2026; Forum received payment on February 19, 2026.

 

On February 20, 2026, Realtime Register B.V. confirmed by email to Forum that the <warnerbros-tour.com> domain name is registered with Realtime Register B.V. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Realtime Register B.V. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Realtime Register B.V. 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 February 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 2026 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@warnerbros-tour.com. Also on February 23, 2026, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 17, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 is a worldwide producer of entertainment goods and services. Complainant owns and operates film studios and entertainment experiences worldwide, including the Warner Bros. Studio Tour London – The Making of Harry Potter, a popular attraction that opened in 2012 and has hosted more than 17 million visitors from around the world. Complainant uses WARNER BROS and a variety of other marks in connection with its goods and services. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations for WARNER BROS in standard character form in the United States, United Kingdom, and many other jurisdictions, and asserts that the mark has become famous around the world.

 

The disputed domain name <warnerbros-tour.com> was registered in February 2026. The name is registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration record. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "Warner Bros. Studio Tour London - The Making of Harry Potter." The website displays Complainant's marks and images of Complainant's studio tour attraction. Complainant alleges that the website imitates Complainant's authorized website and is designed to induce consumers into making purchases based upon a false impression that it is operated by Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's marks.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <warnerbros-tour.com> is confusingly similar to its WARNER BROS 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

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

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.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; 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 <warnerbros-tour.com> incorporates Complainant's registered WARNER BROS trademark, omitting the space and adding a hyphen, the generic term "tour," and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Warner Bros, FA 2168761 (Forum Aug. 26, 2025) (finding <warnerbroscasting.com> confusingly similar to WARNER BROS); TUI AG v. Kuichuan Wang, D2024-0358 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2014) (finding <musement-tour.com> confusingly similar to MUSEMENT); Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. James Stone, FA 1861760 (Forum Oct. 19, 2019) (finding <disneyviptours.com> confusingly similar to DISNEY). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark 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 mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a misleading website that displays Complainant's marks and otherwise attempts to pass off as Complainant to promote purported services similar or identical to those of Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Warner Bros, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); TUI AG v. Kuichuan Wang, supra (same); Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. James Stone, supra (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 registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark, and is using the domain name for a misleading website that displays Complainant's marks and otherwise attempts to pass off as Complainant to promote purported services similar or identical to those of Complainant. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Warner Bros, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); TUI AG v. Kuichuan Wang, supra (same); Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. James Stone, 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 <warnerbros-tour.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: March 18, 2026