SeatGeek v Name Redacted

WIPO Case No. DCC2024-0001

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

SeatGeek v. Name Redacted

Case No. DCC2024-0001

1. The Parties

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

United States.

The Respondent is Name Redacted[1].

[1] The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <seatgeek.cc> 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 January 3, 2024.
On January 4, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On January 4, 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 (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy LLC) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 5,
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

January 5, 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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the they received the Written Notice for these proceedings, but that they were not associated with the disputed domain names and their name and identity have been fraudulently used, without their knowledge or consent, to apply for the registration of the disputed domain anme. On February 9, 2024, the Center informed the Parties of commencement of panel appointment process.
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 15, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph

5, the due date for Response was February 4, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. On

The Center appointed Kathryn Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on February 20, 2024. 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 is a mobile-focused ticket platform that enables users to buy and sell tickets for live sports, concerts, and theater events. The Complainant has used the SEATGEEK trademark since it was established in 2009. The Complainant owns the trademark SEATGEEK, United States Trademark Registration Number 4,062,477, registered on November 29, 2011.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 7, 2023, and as of the date of the subject decision, is linked to a parking page displaying pay-per-click links to “fashion” and “web chatting”. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name was used to generate an email address involved in an

employment scam in which the Respondent offered a non-existent job with the Complainant to an individual

and solicited payment for software supposedly required for the job.

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 the disputed domain name is identical to the SEATGEEK trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and confirms that it has not authorized or licensed rights to the Respondent in any respect.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant states that the Complainant has used the SEATGEEK mark in commerce for over a decade and owns a trademark registration for the mark in the United States, and that it would be highly

unlikely for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name by coincidence. The Complainant also contends that the use of the disputed domain name by someone with no connection to the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith, and states that the disputed domain name has been used in a scam in
which the Respondent attempted to obtain money from job applicants seeking employment with the

Complainant.

B. Respondent

Apart from email communications from a third party claiming identity theft as mentioned under section 3 above, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

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 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. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical 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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, phishing and impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a 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 notes that the Respondent used an email address generated from the disputed domain name to pass itself off as the Complainant and offer a job with the Complainant, and then try to scam the applicant out of money supposedly need to purchase computer software.

page 4

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, phishing and impersonation/passing
off constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

Further, based on the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a website with pay-per-click links and job scams and the fact that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark, it is apparent that the Respondent had bad faith when registering the disputed domain name, and intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.

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

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 <seatgeek.cc> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Kathryn Lee/ Kathryn Lee Sole Panelist Date: March 7, 2024

identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this
decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent.
The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding and has indicated
Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-
12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.