Rightsy — Protect your rights: IP search and flat-fee legal services

Search trademarks

Ticketmaster Corporation v. Amjad Kausar

WIPO Case No. D2002-1018

Outcome
Transfer
Domain names
tickitmaster.com, wwwticketmaster.com
Complainant
Ticketmaster Corporation (Vice President)
Respondent
Amjad Kausar (Pakistan)
Panelist
Howard P. Knopf
Registrar
eNom, Inc. ("eNom") of Redmond, WA, 98052, USA
Decided
18 Dec 2002
Response
The respondent did not reply
Language
English

Source: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Official copy: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-1018.html

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Ticketmaster Corporation v. Amjad Kausar

Case No. D2002-1018

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Ticketmaster Corporation, C/O Brad Serwin, Vice President,

and Acting General Counsel, of Los Angeles, CA 90010, United States of America,

represented by Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson of United States of

America.

The Respondent is Amjad Kausar, of Karachi, 74000, Pakistan.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <tickitmaster.com> and <wwwticketmaster.com>

are registered with eNom, Inc. ("eNom") of Redmond, WA, 98052, USA.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center")

on October 31, 2002. On November 1, 2002, the Center transmitted

by email to eNom request for registrar verification in connection with the domain

names at issue. On November 7, 2002, eNom transmitted by email to

the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed

as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative,

billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied

the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

(the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution

Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally

notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 8, 2002.

In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was

November 28, 2002. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 29, 2002.

The Center appointed Howard P. Knopf as the sole panelist in this matter on

December 4, 2002. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted.

The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality

and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules,

paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

According to the uncontested facts and the evidence submitted, the Complainant

Ticketmaster Corporation ("Ticketmaster") is the owner of several

relevant trademarks in several countries.

These registrations are apparently valid, subsisting, and owned by Ticketmaster.

They include U.S. Registration Nos. 1,746,016 for TICKETMASTER (1993) and 1,746,017

for TICKET MASTER and design (1993) and No. 2,464,562 for TICKETMASTER.COM (2001).

Ticketmaster has also registered and filed applications to register the TICKETMASTER

Mark in over 80 countries and the European Union. Pakistan is not on the list

submitted by the Complainant.

The complainant alleges that Ticketmaster uses the domain name <ticketmaster.com>

in connection with online ticketing service and that anyone in the world, including

persons living in Pakistan, where Respondent is located, with a valid credit

card and Internet capability can access Ticketmaster’s website and buy tickets

for entertainment events. The Complainant alleges that Ticketmaster’s affiliates

and licensees in Canada, Mexico, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Australia maintain

similar websites at "ticketmaster.ca", "ticketmaster.com.mx",

"ticketmaster.ie", "ticketmaster.co.uk" and "ticketmaster7.com".

The Complainant’s uncontradicted allegation is that its trademarks are internationally

well known.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that that the disputed domain names are identical

or confusingly similar to its own trademarks and domain names, that the Respondent

has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, and that the

Respondent has acquired and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Names link to <ownbox.com>.

The ownbox.com website is only a pop-up box which encourages the Internet user

to enter an on-line casino gambling web site. It reads: CONGRATULATIONS!! YOU'VE

WON VIRTUAL REALITY CASINO! CLICK on OK and Get Your +150$ FREE Bonus Now!!!"

The registrant of ownbox.com also is the same registrant of the Disputed Domain

Names, Amjad Kausar.

The uncontradicted evidence is that if an internet user clicks "OK" within

the ownbox.com pop-up dialog box, the website links to ticketsnow.com, an online

ticket broker and competitor of Ticketmaster. At the same time, several pop-up

windows appear for gambling websites, including "super-casino.com",

"englishharbour.com", and "caribbeangold.com". If an internet

user clicks on "Cancel" in the ownbox.com pop-up dialog box, the ticketsnow.com

website pops up in a dialog box and the web site simultaneously links to "http://clickhere.gito.com"/

(the "gito.com website"), a commercial website promoting gambling and commercial

products.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has failed to submit any statement. It has therefore not contested

the allegations of the Complaint and the Panel shall decide on the basis of

Complainant’s submissions, and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom

(Rule 14(b) or the Policy).

6. Discussion and Findings

The Complainant has asserted its rights several times before in WIPO UDRP proceedings.

It has established that "the TICKETMASTER service mark is a strong, arbitrary

and well known trademark applied to ticket agency services offered through ticketing

outlets and on-line websites . . [1].".

Consequently, the Panel accepts that the Complainant’s TICKETMASTER trademark

is internationally well known for ticket agency services and would be known

to a resident of Pakistan who is capable of setting up an English language web

site.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

There can be no doubt that the disputed domain names are virtually identical

to the Complainant’s well known trademark TICKETMASTER. The substitution of

"i" for "e" is simply common garden variety "typo piracy"

that has been dealt with in hundreds if not more previous UDRP cases

[2]. Likewise, the addition of "www" without

a period before ticketmaster.com has no distinguishing capacity in the context

of domain names [3] and is simple typo piracy

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent by its default can only cause the Panel to infer that it has

no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. In any event,

there is ample evidence of the use of the disputed domain names to divert traffic

to a competitor of the Complainant, for the commercial gain of the Respondent.

This overlaps with the issue of bad faith, dealt with below.

The WHOIS evidence shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain

names in August, 2000, which is long after the Complainant’s trade mark rights

were well established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The series of links documented in the evidence and confirmed by the panelist

on December 18, 2002, indicates that the Respondent not only is diverting

those who inadvertently make typographical errors in their URLs to a competitor’s

web site but is also attempting to "mouse trap" them into gambling

and other referral web sites. The Complainant has provided evidence that the

Respondent would receive a 7% referral fee or commission from TicketsNow.com,

a competitor of the Complainant from traffic routed to the latter’s web site

when a transaction is completed. A copy of the latter’s Affiliate Program material

was provided in evidence.

The Respondent is clearly acting in bad faith by using the Complainant’s trademark

to profit in the form of commissions by linking of the Ticketsnow.com Affiliate

Program. The Panel makes no comment on the role of Ticketsnow.com. Whether or

not the Respondent was in violation of the Ticketscom.com terms for its Affiliate

Program is not necessary to decide in this matter.

The Panelist also accepts the contention that the use of the trademark TICKETMASTER

to link to a rival that offers an affiliate program indicates actual knowledge

of the Complainant’s rights.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy

and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names <tickitmaster.com>

and <wwwticketmaster.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Howard P. Knopf

Sole Panelist

Date: December 18, 2002

1. See Ticketmaster Corporation v. Dmitri

Prem, WIPO Case No. D2000-1550 (January

16, 2001). See also Accord Ticketmaster Corporation v. DiscoverNet, Inc., WIPO

Case No. D2001-252 (April 11, 2001); Ticketmaster Corporation v. Spider

Web Design, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1551

(February 4, 2001); Ticketmaster Corporation v. netAfrik, WIPO

Case No. D2001-0906 (August 30, 2001); Ticketmaster Corporation v. Polanski,

WIPO Case No. D2002-0166 (April 8, 2002); Ticketmaster

Corporation v. Iskra Service, WIPO Case No. D2002-0165

(April 8, 2002); Ticketmaster Corporation v. Dotsan, WIPO

Case No. D2002-0167 (April 8, 2002).

2. AltaVista Company v. OFEZ et al, WIPO

Case No. D2000-1160 (February 28, 2001) ("[a] misspelling or typographical

variation of a well known mark is deemed to be 'confusingly similar' to the

Complainant's mark in violation of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP". See also

." Ticketmaster Corporation v. Dotsan, WIPO Case No.

D2002-0167 (April 8, 2002) (finding likelihood of confusion between TICKETMASTER.COM

and tickrtmaster.com and tickectmaster.com); Ticketmaster Corporation v. Polanski,

WIPO Case No. D2002-0166 (April 8, 2002) (ticketmasster.com);

Ticketmaster Corporation v. Iskra Service, WIPO Case

No. D2002-0165 (April 8, 2002) (ticketmasteer.com).

3. Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,

WIPO Case No. D2000-0441 (July 13, 2000)

(transferring wwwreuters.com, etc.)

More cases by this complainant

Open this decision on Rightsy