SeatGeek v Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico

WIPO Case No. D2024-4979

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

SeatGeek v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico

Case No. D2024-4979

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SeatGeek, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Soteria LLC,

United States.

The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <seatgteek.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 2, 2024. On December 3, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 3, 2024, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 4, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 9, 2024.

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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 11, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 31, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 3, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on January 13, 2025. 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

The Complainant, SeatGeek, is a company in the United States, who is a mobile-focused ticket platform that enables users to buy and sell tickets for live sports, concerts, and theater events.

The Complainant is the owner of the United States trademark registration No. 4,062,477 of the word mark
SEATGEEK, registered on November 29, 2011, for services in international class 42.

The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <seatgeek.com>, which connects to its website through which the Complainant’s offers its services.

The disputed domain name <seatgteek.com> was registered on July 31, 2024, and has resolved to a website that featured the Complainant’s registered word mark and the Complainant’s logo and which in general appeared as an imitation of the Complainant’s website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s SEATGEEK trademark, since it is identical to the mark SEATGEEK save for the misspelling of
SEATGEEK by inserting a “t” after the letter “g”.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither affiliated nor a licensee, authorized agent by the company to register or use the SEATGEEK trademark. In addition, the holder has neither used the disputed domain name, nor demonstrated preparations to use in connection with any proof of preparations for a unique, bona fide offering of goods or services relating to the domain name.

Finally, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, since it is used for a website on which the Respondent is using the Complainant’s official logo to divert customers into a ticket purchase or Apple Support scam.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between

page 3

the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, which only differs from the mark by the insertion of a “t” after the letter “g”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Furthermore, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant can never confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that the Respondent has
intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of
confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the
Respondent’s website or of a service on the Respondent’s website. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 4

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 <seatgteek.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Knud Wallberg/
Knud Wallberg
Sole Panelist
Date: January 24, 2025