Ticket Software, LLC of South Windsor, Connecticut, just lost a UDRP on the domain name ticket-network.com a week after another UDRP panel ordered the domain name TicketNetworks.com transferred to the same company

Here the domain holder didn’t even respond.

The difference in the TicketNetworks.com case the domain was registered in 2010 well after the Trademark.

Here the domain was registered in 2001 before the trademark

Here are the relevant facts and findings of the one member panel:

“The Complainant operates several websites. The Complainant is the owner of the United States trademark TICKETNETWORK, Registration Number 2956502, filed on April 29, 2003, and registered on May 31, 2005, for, inter alia, computer software (the “Trademark”).

The disputed domain name was registered on December 4, 2001.

How close are the domain names.

Consider that paragraph III of its Complaint, the Complainant mentioned that the disputed domain name is “www.TicketNetworks.com” which of course is from the earlier case.

“As the disputed domain name is almost identical to the Trademark, differing only by a hyphen between “ticket” and “network”, which does not take away similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trademark ”

“The disputed domain name was registered in 2001, whereas the Complainant’s trademark was filed in 2003 and registered in 2005. :

:The Complainant has not addressed this fact. ”

“Nor has the Complainant made a case that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant at the time of registration.”

“In its Complaint, it argues that the Respondent’s typosquatting behavior is in itself evidence of bad faith”

“In the present case, the Complainant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Panel that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, and that it has intentionally registered the disputed domain name in order to misdirect customers searching for the Complainant.”

“As the disputed domain name was registered several years prior to the filing date of the Trademark, it was the Complainant’s responsibility to come forth with evidence demonstrating this contention, all the more because “ticket network” may be perceived as a generic term and the disputed domain name does not misspell the Trademark, but merely adds a hyphen. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.”

“Further, the Complainant has not demonstrated that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.”

” In the present case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to bring forward evidence justifying the conclusion that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The mere fact that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Trademark is in itself insufficient to find that customers are misled or that the website linked to the disputed domain name is endorsed by the Complainant. ”

It should be noted that the same company won the rights to over 30 typo’s of the trademark back in 2010 in a UDRP: