Ticket Software, LLC of South Windsor, Connecticut, just got the domain name TickerNetwork.com in a UDRP based off a trademark for the term Ticket Network.
Here are the relevant facts and findings of the one member panel:
“The Complainant hosts an online marketplace for event tickets to concert, sport, and theater events in the United States of America (U.S.) and globally.
“Through its infrastructure, the Complainant connects buyers and sellers with ticket inventory listings to various events worldwide.
The network of websites include:
TicketNetwork Point-of-Sale, TicketNetwork Online Exchange, and TicketNetwork/ TicketBoard Pro.
The Complainant is the registrant of the mark TICKETNETWORK under U.S. Reg. No. 2966502, registered on May 31, 2005 and claiming goods and services related to computer software and providing an online marketplace for buyers and sellers of entertainment tickets.
The Respondent provides goods and services, though the exact nature of same is not known from the record.
The Respondent has owned registered domain names that include the words “ticker” and “network” prior to the filing date of the within Complaint.
These registered domain names include the following
securityticker.com November 7, 2002
tickerboard.com March 3, 2000
tickercast.com March 4, 2000
videonetwork.com April 20, 1997
datanetwork.com June 21, 1997
cablenetwork.com November 1, 1997
contentnetwork.com November 12, 1998
streamnetwork.com December 13, 1999
The Respondent has over 100 domain name registrations with the word “ticker” or “network” that have been in use prior to the filing date of the Complaint.
In the present case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Complainant owns rights in the TICKETNETWORK mark.
First, the TICKETNETWORK mark was used by the Complainant since at least March 31, 1996, all as indicated in the U.S. registration details submitted by the Complainant and that it was used specifically in connection with the goods/services that are directly related to its core business.
Second, the Complainant owns a federally registered trademark/service mark for the TICKETNETWORK mark in the U.S.
Finally, the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s TICKETNETWORK mark only differ in terms of a single letter and are therefore nearly identical.
First, the Respondent claims that it has an interest in the disputed domain name because “Ticker Network” is a common descriptive term referring to “[a]ny of various devices that receive and display similar information, such as stock market quotations, electronically” and uses the disputed domain name “to post advertising links, which relate to stocks”.
The Respondent also claimed that it owns over 100 domain name registrations that contain the words “ticker” or “network,” all of which were allegedly registered prior to the filing date of the Complaint.
Conspicuously, however, the Respondent, though it had ample opportunity to do so, did not provide any evidence of its other related domain name registrations, nor did it offer any information regarding the nature or purpose of said websites
These factors suggest that the Respondent was not and is not engaging in a bona fide offering of goods/services under the disputed domain name, nor is otherwise engaging in legitimate business activities.
Second, as to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, the Respondent in its Response to the Complaint does not assert that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name and there is no evidence in the record to indicate such.
Finally, as to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, in view of the Respondent’s claim, as mentioned above, that it owns over 100 domain name registrations that contain the word “ticker” or “network”, together with the conspicuous absence of any claim, let alone proof offered by the Respondent concerning its bona fide offering of goods/services under the disputed domain name, this Panel is of the position that the Respondent is not engaged in the activity set forth in this paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.
For these reasons, the Respondent is not found to have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, as this legal concept is understood to mean pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
When considering (a) the dearth of information regarding the nature of the Respondent’s business activities, in general, and specifically in connection with the disputed domain name, together with (b) information the Complainant provided that the disputed domain name is a “repository for links to various services including the sale of entertainment and sporting tickets similar to Complainant”, and (c) the fact that the Respondent did not dispute such claim, all show that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.
Thus, the Panel finds that there is convincing evidence that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely for the purposes of disrupting the business of the Complainant.
Finally, it is noted that the Respondent claimed that “the fact that Complainant has waited eight years to file this Complaint is an indication that Complainant did not truly believe Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain violated the Policy”.
“The Panel sees no correlation between the issue of when the Complainant considered the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name to be in violation of the Policy and its “true” belief as to whether it is or is not a violation.
Further, the issue of when the Complainant considered the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name to be a violation is not germane to the outcome of this case, particularly in the context raised by the Respondent.
For the record, one instance where the Complainant’s knowledge of the Respondent’s registration could conceivably be considered is if the Respondent had raised a laches defense.
In this case, however, the Respondent clearly did not raise such a defense.
Even if it had, most UDRP panelists have not found laches defenses to be generally applicable in UDRP disputes.
“Notwithstanding, it is noted that although the merits of a laches defense in a UDRP proceeding have been debated and there are opposing views on the subject, this Panel believes that under the current provisions of the Policy, Rules, and Supplemental Rules, particularly the lack of certain basic procedural rules, it would be difficult for the concept of laches to be properly and fairly implemented.
For this reason, this Panel sees no persuasive merit, under the current Policy and Rules, in recognizing, let alone accepting, such defense
“In conclusion, the Panel finds that Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent.