Grand Ole Opry IP, LLC v mohamed bennani, Ticketwood, Inc

WIPO Case No. D2023-2948

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Grand Ole Opry IP, LLC v. mohamed bennani, Ticketwood, Inc

Case No. D2023-2948

1. The Parties

Complainant is Grand Ole Opry IP, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Adams and Reese LLP, United States.

Respondent is mohamed bennani, Ticketwood, Inc, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <grandoleoprynashville.store> (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with

GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 11, 2023.

On July 11, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 12, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on July 13, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 14, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal

requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 19, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 8, 2023. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center

notified Respondent’s default on August 15, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on August 25, 2023. 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

Complainant is the owner of the famous GRAND OLE OPRY trademark and the short-hand version of the mark, OPRY. Complainant uses the marks in connection with live music concerts and other entertainment services, including facilitating online ticket sales for such events. The GRAND OLE OPRY is both a weekly performance showcase featuring country music performers and a widely renowned event venue located in

Nashville, Tennessee, United States. The GRAND OLE OPRY radio show, which adopted its name in 1928,
is the longest continuous country music radio show broadcast in history. Since the first use of the GRAND

OLE OPRY mark in 1928, Complainant has promoted the mark continuously and extensively.

Complainant owns numerous Trademark registrations for the marks GRAND OLE OPRY and OPRY in the

United States and in various other countries. Complainant’s United States registrations for the GRAND OLE

OPREY and OPRY Marks include the following:

Trademark	Application No.	Application Date	Registration No.	Registration Date
GRAND OLE OPRY	71571588	January 3, 1949	527589	July 11, 1950
GRAND OLE OPRY	72000932	January 17, 1956	645898	May 21, 1957
GRAND OLE OPRY	78362902	February 5, 2004	2937990	April 5, 2005
OPRY	87029919	May 9, 2016	5104781	December 20, 2016
OPRY	87030666	May 10, 2016	5118215	January 10, 2017
OPRY	87719555	December 13, 2017	6043010	April 28, 2020

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 11, 2023. At the time of filing this Complaint, it resolved

to a website prominently displaying Complainant’s trademarks and promoting unauthorized ticket sales to

Complainant’s events.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates the well-known GRAND OLE OPRY and OPRY trademarks

and is therefore identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, notwithstanding the inclusion of the

generic or descriptive term “Nashville”.

Complainant confirms that it has not given Respondent authorization for the use of its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, nor is Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.

Respondent’s incorporation of Complainant’s famous, widely-known GRAND OLE OPRY and OPRY

trademarks into the Disputed Domain Name creates a presumption of bad faith. In addition, Respondent has

been using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to divert Internet users, namely, potential visitors to

Complainant’s GRAND OLE OPRY events, to a website prominently using the Opry Marks to advertise

Respondent’s own unauthorized ticket sales to Complainant’s events. Respondent is misleading those

users into believing that the Disputed Domain Name is operated by Complainant.

Respondent’s use of this Disputed Domain Name is part of a pattern of bad faith behavior consisting of

registering domain names confusingly similar to established trademarks for commercial gain.

page 3

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has rights to the GRAND OLE OPREY and OPRY marks, as demonstrated by its registrations

and widespread continued use. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-

known marks because it contains the entirety of Complainant’s marks with the addition of “Nashville” and a
generic Top-level Domain (“gTLD”). Numerous UDRP panels deciding cases under the Policy have held that

the incorporation of a complainant’s well-known mark in full in a disputed domain name is a compelling factor

in favor of a finding of confusing similarity, and that the addition of other terms – particularly when such terms
are associated with the mark or its owner – does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the

Disputed Domain Name and Complainant’s marks. See National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc.

v. Racing Connection / The Racin’ Connection, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1524.

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent is not known by Complainant’s marks. Complainant confirms that it has not authorized

Respondent’s use of its marks or the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. After becoming aware of

the Disputed Domain Name, counsel for Complainant attempted to contact Respondent via the email
address shown on the website at the Disputed Domain Name to request that Respondent cease its infringing

use of its GRAND OLE OPRY and OPRY marks and transfer the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant.

That email was not delivered/not accepted by the recipient’s email system. Complainant’s counsel also sent

Respondent, via the registrar’s standard Contact Domain Holder form, a notice indicating that the “Domain

name or content is infringing on a trademark or violating local laws or regulations”. Respondent did not
respond to Complainant's notice or Complaint and has failed to rebut Complainant’s prima facie case.

Also, Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or in a legitimate noncommercial or fair manner. Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to direct to

an unauthorized ticket reseller website, which uses Complainant’s marks to advertise and sell tickets to

Complainant’s events. The services offered on Respondent’s website are identical to those offered on

Complainant’s website “ By using the Disputed Domain Name in this manner, Respondent

misleads Internet users, in particular, potential visitors to Complainant’s GRAND OLE OPRY events, into

believing that Complainant operates the website found at the Disputed Domain Name. The content of

Respondent’s website further exacerbates this confusion with prominent use of the Opry Marks and

misleading statements implying the website is operated by Complainant. See American Honda Motor Co.

Inc. v. Hector Henriquez, WIPO Case No. D2018-0787 (finding no rights or legitimate interests where

respondent was using the domain to direct to a website displaying complainant’s trademarks).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Given the

long use and fame of Complainant’s marks, Respondent clearly knew or should have known of

Complainant’s marks at the time Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent

clearly had Complainant in mind when registering the Disputed Domain Name, which also incorporates the

city name “Nashville”, where Complainant is located. Such knowledge is sufficient to establish that the

Disputed Domain Name was appropriated by Respondent in bad faith.

page 4

Further, Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to direct Internet users to a webpage prominently

using the Opry Marks to advertise Respondent’s own unauthorized ticket sales to Complainant’s events.

Intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a competing website, by creating a

likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of

Respondent’s website or other location, constitutes bad faith. This is sufficient to establish that the Disputed

Domain Name was used by Respondent in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <grandoleoprynashville.store>, be transferred to Complainant.

/Michael A. Albert/

Michael A. Albert

Sole Panelist
Date: September 8, 2023