The Complainant is Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Switzerland, represented by Pointer Brand Protection and Research, Netherlands.
The Respondent is Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc., United States of America (the “United States”) / Sports & Events Hospitality Group Ltd, Malta and Sport Games 2020, Malta. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 20, 2019. On December 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 6, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response: (a) it is the Registrar for the disputed domain name; (b) the disputed domain name is registered through the Registrar’s privacy service; (c) disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint; (d) the language of the registration agreement is English; (e) the disputed domain name was registered subject to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), and the UDRP applies to the disputed domain name. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 7, 2020 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 10, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Policy, 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 January 13, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 2, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 3, 2020. The Center appointed Warwick A. Rothnie as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 2020. 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 the governing body of European football and is the umbrella organization for 55 national football associations across Europe. The Complainant organises several very well-known football competitions including the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the Nations League, the Super Cup and the UEFA European Championship. The latter competition has been held every four years since 1960. Since the tournament in 1996, the competition has been informally known and promoted as “UEFA Euro [year]” or simply “Euro [year]”. The most recent competition, Euro 2016, was held in 2016. The next competition, Euro 2020, is scheduled for later this year. The finals, in particular, attract a very wide audience and have generated very substantial revenues. For example, the Complaint states that Euro 2016, the last time the Championship was held, resulted in a total revenue of USD 2.13 billion (almost USD 42 million in revenue per game). A total of almost 5 billion people watched the 51 matches of the tournament, with 600 million viewers watching the final between France and Portugal. The revenue for all Euro tournaments from 1992 – 2016 is over EUR 5.9 billion. It is projected that Euro 2020 will deliver a global live audience of over 5 billion viewers. The Complainant’s main website is available from The Complainant is the owner of a number of registered trademarks. For present purposes, it is sufficient to refer specifically only to the registrations for EURO 2020: (a) in the European Union, European Union Trademark (EUTM) No. 011098746, which has been registered since December 31, 2012 in respect of a very wide range of goods and services in International Classes 3, 4, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43; and (b) in the United States, Registered Trademark No. 5,308,930, which has been registered for goods and services in International Classes 25, 32, 36 and 38 since October 17, 2017; and (c) in the United States, Registered Trademark No. 5,420,679, for goods and services in International Classes 28, 29, 30 and 41 since March 13, 2018. There is also a device form in which UEFA EURO 2020 is the prominent verbal element. For example, EUTM No. 015848104, which was registered on January 25, 2017. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name was registered on March 28, 2019. At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name resolved to a webpage featuring a “logo” – EuroTickets 2020. The “logo” is not the same as the Complainant’s device mark, but similar in colouring. There is a large photograph of, presumably, Wembley Stadium (where the final will be held) with the words “Euro Cup 2020 Final” superimposed and “buttons” “Buy Tickets” and “Sell Tickets”. Then, there were various links to various games with pricing information and other types of “packages”. The prices for match tickets start at GBP 250. The corresponding prices through the Complainant’s authorised vendor, if available, range from EUR 75 to 225. 5. Discussion and Findings No response has been filed. The Complaint has been sent, however, to the Respondent at the physical and electronic coordinates confirmed as correct by the Registrar in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. Bearing in mind the duty of the holder of a domain name to provide and keep up to date correct WhoIs details, therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has been given a fair opportunity to present its case. When a respondent has defaulted, paragraph 14(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to proceed to a decision on the Complaint in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to decide the dispute on the basis of the statements and documents that have been submitted and any rules and principles of law deemed applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. The Respondent The Registrar has confirmed that the first-named Respondent is merely a privacy service. The Registrar has disclosed that the registrant name underlying the registration is the third-named Respondent. According to searches undertaken by the Complainant, there is no entity registered in Malta under that name. The second-named Respondent, however, is identified on the Contact Us page of the disputed domain name. Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines the “respondent” for the purposes of a complaint under the Policy as: “the holder of [the] domain-name registration against which [the] complaint is initiated.” On the information supplied by the Registrar, therefore, the third-named Respondent is the Respondent. Whether there is any relationship between the third-named Respondent and the second-named Respondent is unclear. As noted above, however, the Center has transmitted the Complaint to the third-named Respondent at the co-ordinates provided by the Registrar. The Center has also forwarded the Complaint to the second-named Respondent at the addresses given on the Contact Us page. Unless the context requires the contrary, therefore, the Panel will refer to the second- and third-named Respondents jointly as the Respondent. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights. There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark. Apart from anything else, the Complainant has proven ownership of the registered trademarks for EURO 2020 identified in section 4 above. The second stage of this inquiry simply requires a visual and aural comparison of the disputed domain name to the proven trademarks. In undertaking that comparison, it is permissible in the present circumstances to disregard the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) component as a functional aspect of the domain name system. Questions such as the scope of the trademark rights, the geographical location of the respective parties and other considerations that may be relevant to an assessment of infringement under trademark law are not relevant at this stage. Such matters, if relevant, may fall for consideration under the other elements of the Policy e.g. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 1.7 and 1.11. Disregarding the “.com” gTLD, the disputed domain name inserts the word “tickets” between the “Euro” and “2020” elements of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is clearly visible and recognisable in the disputed domain name. The inclusion of the dictionary word “tickets” in the disputed domain name (albeit inserted between the two elements of the Complainant’s trademark rather than tacked on at the end) does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is satisfied. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests The second requirement the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances can be situations in which the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to [the Respondent] of the dispute, [the Respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) [the Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the Respondent] has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) [the Respondent] is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. These are illustrative only and are not an exhaustive listing of the situations in which a respondent can show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. The onus of proving this requirement, like each element, falls on the Complainant. Panels have recognized the difficulties inherent in proving a negative, however, especially in circumstances where much of the relevant information is in, or likely to be in, the possession of the respondent. Accordingly, it is usually sufficient for a complainant to raise a prima facie case against the respondent under this head and an evidential burden will shift to the respondent to rebut that prima facie case. See e.g., WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The Complainant states that it has not authorised, licensed or otherwise permitted the second- or third-named Respondents to use the disputed domain name. Nor are either of them (if they are different persons) affiliated with the Complainant. The disputed domain name is plainly not derived from the second-named Respondent’s name. Assuming (contrary to the evidence submitted by the Complainant) that an entity does exist under the name of the third-named Respondent, its name does include “2020”, but nothing which could reasonably provide a basis to claim that “Euro tickets 2020” is derived from its name. There is no evidence before the Panel that the resale of tickets to an event like the Complainant’s competition, even at a higher price than the face value of the tickets, is illegal. On the assumption that the Respondent is in fact offering for sale genuine tickets to the Euro 2020 competition, the Complainant points out the Respondent’s website would not qualify as a good faith offering of goods or services under the so-called Oki-Data factors because the website does not clearly disclose it is unaffiliated with the Complainant in any way. See e.g. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8. In that respect, the position is noticeably different to the first disputed domain name in the Panel’s prior decision in The Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo Limited v. Tribal Sports, Tribal Sports SL, Domains Manager, Tribal Sports SL,WIPO Case No. D2016-2291. These matters, taken together, are sufficient to establish a prima facie case under the Policy that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The basis on which the Respondent has adopted the disputed domain name, therefore, calls for explanation or justification. The Respondent, however, has not sought to rebut that prima facie case or advance any claimed entitlement. Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has established the second requirement under the Policy also. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the third requirement of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name has been both registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. These are conjunctive requirements; both must be satisfied for a successful complaint: see e.g. Burn World-Wide, Ltd. d/b/a BGT Partners v. Banta Global Turnkey Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2010-0470. Generally speaking, a finding that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith requires an inference to be drawn that the respondent in question has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of its significance as a trademark owned by (usually) the complainant. In this case, the nature of the Respondent’s website shows it was well-aware of the Complainant’s trademark and is seeking to take advantage of it. The failure to properly disclose the nature of its relationship or, rather, its lack of any affiliation with the Complainant is sufficient to qualify as use in bad faith under the Policy. Having regard to the nature of the disputed domain name and as that use started shortly after the disputed domain name was registered, the Panel readily infers the disputed domain name was registered for that purpose too. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has established all three requirements under 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 Warwick A. Rothnie
Sole Panelist
Date: February 28, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy