Ticketmaster Corporation v. Woofer Smith

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Ticketmaster Corporation v. Woofer Smith

Case No. D2003-0346

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Ticketmaster Corporation, c/o Brad Serwin, Vice President and General Counsel, of Los Angeles, California, United States of America, represented by Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.

The Respondent is Woofer Smith, of Houston, Texas, United States of America.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names, which are at issue, are as follows: <ticketsmasters.com> <wwwticketmasters.com> and <wwwticketsmaster.com> (all of which are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Domain Names").

The Domain Names are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. "godaddy.com", located in Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America ("Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 6, 2003.

On May 8, 2003, the Center transmitted by e-mail to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names at issue. On the same day, May 8, 2003, Go Daddy Software transmitted by e-mail to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the current registrant of the Domain Names and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contacts. Further, the Registrar confirmed that the Domain Names will remain locked during the pending administrative proceeding.

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 May 15, 2003. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 4, 2003. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 6, 2003.

The Center appointed James H. Grossman as the sole panelist in this matter on June 20, 2003. 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

A. Jurisdictional Basis

This dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy, and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The registration agreement, pursuant to which the Disputed Domain Names were registered, incorporates the Policy.

In accordance with Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, and as detailed below, according to Complainant, Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding because:

a) The Disputed Domain Names are identical with or confusingly similar to service marks and the trade name in which Ticketmaster has rights; and

b) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names; and

c) The Disputed Domain Names were registered or acquired and are being used in bad faith.

B. Factual and Legal Grounds for Complaint

The following facts taken from the Complaint are accepted by the Panel, in the absence of a Response from Respondent:

Ticketmaster is the global leader in live event ticket sales. Ticketmaster and its affiliates and licensees provide tickets to more than 350,000 events each year, including professional sports, arts, family, concert and other events. Ticketmaster and its affiliates and licensees serve more than 7,000 clients worldwide and act as the exclusive ticketing service for hundreds of leading arenas, stadiums, performing arts venues and theaters. Through Ticketmaster's network of approximately 3,100 retail Ticket Center outlets located in 210 cities in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Mexico and Australia, 20 worldwide telephone call centers and its affiliates' and licensees' various websites, including "www.ticketmaster.com", "www.ticketmaster.ca", "www.ticketmaster.com.mx", "www.ticketmaster.ie", "www.ticketmaster.co.uk" and "www.ticketmaster7.com", more than 86.7 million tickets were sold in 2001 valued at more than $3.6 billion. Approximately 43% of Ticketmaster's sales are completed via the Internet on its various Ticketmaster websites.

Ticketmaster has long and extensively used the trade name and service mark TICKETMASTER, and variations thereof, for its ticketing services throughout the United States and internationally (the "TICKETMASTER Mark"). Ticketmaster owns the following U.S. registrations for its TICKETMASTER Mark:

MARK

U.S. REG. NO.

REG. DATE

GOODS OR SERVICES

TICKETMASTER

1,746,016

January

12, 1993

Accounting

services for ticket sales rendered by computer; and promoting sporting

events, musical concerts and other entertainment events; ticket agency

services for sporting events, musical concert and other entertainment

events, in International Class 35.

TICKETMASTER

& Design

1,746,017

January

12, 1993

Ticket

agency services for sporting events, musical concerts and other entertainment

events, in International Class 35

TICKETMASTER.COM

2,464,562

June

26, 2001

On-line

ticket agency services for sporting events, musical concerts and other

entertainment events, in International Class 35

Each of these registrations is valid, subsisting, and owned by Ticketmaster. U.S. Registration Nos. 1,746,016 and 1,746,017 are incontestable in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1064, and are conclusive evidence of the validity of the mark, Ticketmaster's ownership of the TICKETMASTER Mark, and its exclusive right to use the TICKETMASTER Mark in commerce in accordance with 15 U.S.C. §1115(b).

Ticketmaster also has registered and filed applications to register the TICKETMASTER Mark in over 80 countries and the European Union.

Ticketmaster also uses the domain name <ticketmaster.com> in connection

with online ticketing services. Anyone in the world with a valid credit card

and Internet capability can access Ticketmaster's websites and buy tickets for

entertainment events. Ticketmaster's affiliates and licensees in Canada, Mexico,

Ireland, the United Kingdom and Australia also maintain similar websites at

"www.ticketmaster.ca", "www.ticketmaster.com.mx", "www.ticketmaster.ie",

"www.ticketmaster.co.uk", and "www.ticketmaster.com.au".

As a result of Ticketmaster's extensive marketing efforts, and the resulting

widespread use of its services, "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 . . ." Ticketmaster Corporation

v. Dmitri Prem, WIPO Case No. D2000-1550

(January 16, 2001); Ticketmaster Corporation v. DiscoverNet, Inc., WIPO

Case No. D2001-0252 (April 9, 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. Dotsan, WIPO

Case No. D2002-0167 (April 8, 2002); 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). Consequently, Ticketmaster has come

to own a most valuable goodwill symbolized by the TICKETMASTER Mark.

Moreover, "Ticketmaster has demonstrated that its longstanding use of the TICKETMASTER

mark and variants thereof, its very high volume of business transacted under

or in connection with the mark, as well as the worldwide use and recognition

of the mark, places its mark in the category of trademarks with a 'high degree

of. . . acquired distinctiveness' and the marks, accordingly, enjoy a wide scope

of protection. Ticketmaster Corporation v. Harold R. Brown, II, Harold R.

Brown III, and Ted Waitt, WIPO Case No.

D2001-0716 (July 18, 2001).

C. Response from Respondent

The Respondent has not filed a Response to the Complaint. Under paragraph 5(e) of the Rules, it is provided that if a Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based on the Complaint. Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, when a party defaults in complying with any of the requirements of the Rules, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel is entitled to "draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate". No exceptional circumstances have been brought to the Panel's attention. Accordingly, the Panel makes the findings below on the basis of the material contained in the Complaint.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Domain Names resolve to "www.ticketvault.com", a virtual ticket broker website. The Complainant states that according to the Registrant’s WhoIs report for <ticketvault.com>, the domain name is owned by Ticket Vault, which has the same address as the Respondent in this case. Moreover, the Administrative Contact and the Technical Contract for <ticketvault.com> are both the Respondent.

Respondent advertises the sale of tickets for sporting events, musical concerts and other entertainment events at the "www.ticketvault.com" website. Ticketmaster also is selling tickets to many of these events. For example, both Ticketmaster and Ticket Vault are selling tickets to the Bon Jovi and Dave Matthews Band concerts.

The Panel has confirmed for itself that the "www.ticketvault.com" website does promote the sale of tickets

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant takes the following position:

The Domain Names are virtually identical and confusingly similar to the TICKETMASTER

Mark under Section 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The typographical variations between

the TICKETMASTER Mark and the Domain Names are "likely to be overlooked" and

are plainly designed to lead consumers who misspell or mistype Ticketmaster's

registered and famous name and mark to other websites. Ticketmaster Corporation

v. Dotsan, WIPO Case No. D2002-0167

(April 8, 2002) (finding likelihood of confusion between <ticketmaster.com>

and <tickectmaster.com> and <tickrtmaster.com>; see also 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>.

With regard to the addition of the "www" before the misspelling of the TICKETMASTER

Mark, previous administrative panels have determined that use of a trademark

used in conjunction with this prefix constitutes likelihood of confusion since

the letters "www" have "no distinguishing capacity in the context of domain

names, the letters "www" have the effect of focusing particular attention on

the word succeeding them." Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,

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

transferring <wwwreuters.com>, etc.; see also J. Christian Angle Technology

Properties, Inc. v. Alex Vorot, Personal and Free Domains Parking, NAF Claim

No. FA0096569 (March 26, 2001) transferring <wwwradioshack.com>. Moreover,

administrative panels have found by using "www" before a mark is "taking advantage

of a typing error that users commonly make when searching the Internet, i.e.

eliminating the period between the www and the domain name." Hewlett-Packard

Company v. World Wide Web Home Player, NAF Claim No. FA0096267 (January 8, 2001).

Moreover, the addition of a top-level domain (gTLD).com will not distinguish

the Disputed Domain Names. The "addition of the generic top-level-domain (gTLD)

.com is without legal significance in determining similarity". BellSouth

Intellectual Property Corporation v. Polanski, WIPO

Case No. D2002-0170 (May 6, 2002).

The Panel agrees that the Complainant has met the burden of proof as to the Domain Names being confusingly similar. It appears to the Panel that the Respondent has used a bag of tricks in order to deceive the end user into thinking he or she is dealing with the Complainant or an affiliate thereof. In fact, <ticketvault.com> is a competitor. This is done through a predictable mistyping of another's mark which has become recognized as a particular type of cybersquatting known as typosquatting as well as through other devious devices. The result is clear that there is a likelihood of confusion between Complainant’s TICKETMASTER Mark and the Domain Names within the meaning of UDRP Section 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant makes the following argument:

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names under

Section 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent has not used and is not known

to the public as "TICKETSMASTERS", "WWWTICKETSMASTER" OR "WWWTICKETMASTERS"

either in business or personally. Thus, Respondent, cannot, per Policy Sections

4(c)(ii), show bona fide use of its domain name. Alta Vista Co. v. O.F.E.Z.

et al., WIPO Case No. D2000-1160 (February

28, 2001); CSA International (a.k.a. Canadian Standards Association) v. John

O. Shannon and Care Tech Industries, Inc., WIPO

Case No. D2000-0071 (March 24, 2000).

In addition, Ticketmaster has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent

to use or apply for any domain name incorporating the TICKETMASTER Mark. Compagnie

de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO

Case No. D2000-0020 (March 14, 2000); Telstra Corporation Limited v.

Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No.

D2000-0003 (February 18, 2000).

The Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names to promote a virtual entertainment events ticket broker website, "www.ticketvault.com". The "www.ticketvault.com" website proclaims, "Welcome to Ticket Vault, the Simple, online event ticketing solution" and "Our Vault is Overflowing with Tickets." At the "www.ticketvault.com" site, the Respondent advertises the sale of tickets to sporting events, musical concerts and other entertainment events. Exhibits M, "www.ticketvault.com" website; see also Exhibits I, J, and K. Ticketmaster also is selling tickets to many of these events.

The Respondent is attempting to divert traffic to a website that directly competes

with Ticketmaster. The diversion of traffic through the use of domain names

that are confusingly similar to the TICKETMASTER Mark illustrates that the Respondent

has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Moreover, the fact

that Ticketmaster and the websites to which the Domain Names resolve both sell

event tickets increases the potential for confusion. AltaVista Company v.

O.F.E.Z. et al., WIPO Case No. D2000-1160

(February 28, 2001 ) use of domain names with slight misspellings "to attract

Internet users to other directly competitive sites is not a legitimate use of

a domain name"; see also, Expedia, Inc. v. Dotsan, WIPO

Case No. D2001-1220 (December 18, 2001), finding that although there was

no evidence of commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish

the trademark, such redirection "could hardly be called 'legitimate noncommercial

or fair use' of the Domain Name." CSA International v. John O. Shannon

and Care Tech Industries, Inc., Case D2000-0071

(March 24, 2000);

The Panel has no evidence to the contrary of what is alleged by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent's use of the Domain Names does not constitute legitimate use within the meaning of Policy Sections 4(c)(i) - (iii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant alleges the following:

By using a misspelling of the well-known TICKETMASTER Mark, the Respondent

seeks to attract Internet users who mistype or misspell Ticketmaster's name

when seeking to find Ticketmaster's website on the World Wide Web. Such registration

and use of a misspelled domain name constitutes "typosquatting," which "in and

of itself constitutes bad faith registration and use". Dow Jones & Company,

Inc. and Dow Jones LP v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a Cupcake Patrol, WIPO

Case No. D2001-0302 (May 18, 2001).

The Respondent's diversion of traffic to "www.ticketvault.com", a

website offering goods and services competing with those of Ticketmaster, is

also indicative of bad faith pursuant to Sections 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the

Policy. Ticketmaster Corporation v. netAfrik, WIPO

Case No. D2001-0906 (August 30, 2001), finding bad faith where the domain

names and the services offered were similar such that there was "no doubt the

Respondent deliberately chose the disputed domain names"; EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns

and Matt Oettinger, WIPO Case No. D2000-1368

(December 15, 2000), finding that the Respondent registered and used

the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith to promote competing auction

sites. One administrative panel has even explained that "although not specifically

mentioned in the non-exhaustive Policy bad faith provisions, the very fact of

registering such a famous mark to use in the same business as Complainant reeks

of bad faith." Christie's Inc. v. Tiffany's Jewelry Auction, Inc.,

WIPO Case No. D2001-0075 (March 6, 2001)

(emphasis added).

Based on Ticketmaster's long use and registration of the TICKETMASTER Mark,

it can be assumed that the Respondent has actual knowledge of Ticketmaster's

rights. At the very least, a trademark search on the United States Patent and

Trademark Office website would have disclosed Ticketmaster's trademark rights.

Ticketmaster Corporation v. Spider Web Design, Inc., WIPO

Case No. D2000-1551 (February 4, 2001), finding "substantial constructive

notice" because a trademark search would have revealed Complainant's registration

of the mark; General Electric Company v. CPIC NET and Hussain Syed, WIPO

Case No. D2001-0087 (May 2, 2001), finding constructive notice

where "a trademark search on the date of the registration of the Domain Name

would have revealed Complainant's registration of the GE marks in the United

States"; Marine Toys for Tots Foundation v. Jim Gayles, WIPO

Case No. D2001-0088 (March 20, 2001) finding constructive notice where a

trademark search would have revealed complainant's registration of the mark.

The Respondent knowingly chose a domain name, which is virtually identical

and limited to the TICKETMASTER Mark. "Respondent could have chosen a domain

name adequately reflecting both the object and independent nature of its site,

as evidenced today in thousands of domain names." Compagnie de Saint Gobain

v. Com-Union Corp, WIPO Case No. D2000-0020

(March 14, 2000). In fact, the Respondent has chosen and uses such a domain

name, <ticketvault.com>.

The Respondent deliberately seeks to disrupt the business of Ticketmaster by directing consumers seeking Ticketmaster's website and services to a Ticketmaster competitor, <ticketvault.com> and also seeks commercial gain through the use of the TICKETMASTER Mark. Thus, the Respondent's registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes use in bad faith within the meaning of UDRP Sections 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

The Panel agrees with the statements set forth above by Complainant and therefore finds there is significant evidence of bad faith. The evidence is only exacerbated by the failure of the Respondent to make any response to the Complaint.

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 <ticketsmasters.com>, <wwwticketmasters.com> and <wwwticketsmaster.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

James H. Grossman

Sole Panelist

Date: July 4, 2003

More cases by this complainant

• Ticketmaster Corporation — D2008-1331 · Terminated
• Ticketmaster Corporation v. Domainstand.com LLC — D2008-0665 · ticketfmaster.com · Transfer · 18 Jun 2008
• Ticketmaster Corporation v. Contractor — D2008-0579 · ticketmasterwarehouse.com, ticketmasterwarehouse.info, yourticketmaster.info · Transfer · 18 Jun 2008
• Ticketmaster Corporation v. Wine Savant, LLC — D2008-0578 · wineticketmaster.com · Transfer · 05 Jun 2008
• Ticketmaster Corporation v. IM Panama — D2008-0577 · ticketmasterpanama.com · Transfer · 02 Jun 2008
• Ticketmaster Corporation v. Darcy Andrade — D2008-0439 · freeticketmaster.com, ticketmasterbuy.com, ticketmasterdiscount.com · Transfer · 23 May 2008