Front Gate Ticketing Solutions LLC dba Front Gate Tickets v. Mark Williams
Claim Number: FA1403001547863
Complainant is Front Gate Ticketing Solutions LLC dba Front Gate Tickets (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Mark Williams (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <frontgatetickets.co>, registered with UNITED-DOMAINS AG.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 10, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 10, 2014.
On March 12, 2014, UNITED-DOMAINS AG confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <frontgatetickets.co> domain name is registered with UNITED-DOMAINS AG and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. UNITED-DOMAINS AG has verified that Respondent is bound by the UNITED-DOMAINS AG 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 March 12, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 1, 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@frontgatetickets.co. Also on March 12, 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 April 7, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <frontgatetickets.co> domain name is identical to Complainant’s FRONT GATE TICKETS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <frontgatetickets.co> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <frontgatetickets.co> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the FRONT GATE TICKETS mark with the USPTO is sufficient to show rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg L.P. v. Johnston, FA 760084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 25, 2006) (holding that the complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO established rights in the BLOOMBERG mark).
Respondent’s <frontgatetickets.co> domain name is identical to Complainant’s FRONT GATE TICKETS mark, as it merely adds the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” and removes the spaces in the mark. The removal of spaces and addition of a ccTLD is not enough to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that eliminating the space between terms of a mark still rendered the <gwbakeries.mobi> domain name identical to the complainant’s GW BAKERIES mark); see also Audigier Brand Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. bai wentao, FA 1286108 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 16, 2009) (holding that even after the “addition of a ccTLD the disputed domain name is still identical to Complainant’s mark.”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <frontgatetickets.co> domain name is identical to Complainant’s FRONT GATE TICKETS mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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 asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the <frontgatetickets.co> domain name, noting that Respondent’s name, as listed in the WHOIS information, is “Mark Williams.” Complainant further argues that it has not given Respondent permission to use its FRONT GATE TICKETS mark. Thus, the Panel finds that, based on the evidence in the record, Respondent is not commonly known by the <frontgatetickets.co> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant argues that Respondent is using the <frontgatetickets.co> domain name divert Internet users to its websites where they are prompted to create an account or sign in to an existing account, purchase tickets, and manage various aspects of their ticket purchase. The Panel notes that Respondent asks consumers to enter their email addresses, a password, and the last 4 digits of their credit card on its “Sign In” page. Complainant shows that Respondent then uses the disputed domain name to send emails to Complainant’s customers, purporting to be from Complainant, and indicating that customers may check the shipping status by clicking on a link contained in the email. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <frontgatetickets.co> domain name to phish for consumer information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2010) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to “phish” for users’ personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As noted above, Respondent is using the <frontgatetickets.co> domain name in connection with a phishing scam that leads consumers away from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website for Respondent’s financial gain. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <frontgatetickets.co> domain name to phish for consumers’ personal information shows bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (concluding that using a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients” is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also Anne of Green Gable Licensing Auth., Inc. v. Internetworks, AF-0109 (eResolution June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent admittedly used the complainant’s well-known mark to attract users to the respondent's website).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered the <frontgatetickets.co> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the FRONT GATE TICKETS mark, as evidenced by Respondent’s direct copying of Complainant’s own “Sign In” webpage. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s FRONT GATE TICKETS mark, showing bad faith use and registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <frontgatetickets.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 18, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page