The Petitioner is See Group Limited of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”), represented by Nameshield, France. 2. Domain Holder
The Domain Holder is P. I. of Bulgaria. 3. Domain Name and Procedural History
This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the disputed domain name .
This Petition was filed under the Terms and Conditions of registration (the “.se Policy”) and the Instructions governing Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding for domain names in the top-level domain .se (the “.se Rules”).
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) verified that the Petition satisfied the formal requirements of the .se Policy and the .se Rules. In accordance with Section 13 of the .se Rules, the Center formally notified the Domain Holder of the Petition on May 15, 2018. The Domain Holder did not submit any response and, accordingly, the Center notified the Domain Holder’s default on June 15, 2018.
The Center appointed Bengt Eliasson as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on July 4, 2018. The Arbitrator has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with Section 1 of the .se Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Petitioner, See Group Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vivendi SA, a Paris-based international Media and Content business that has filed an application for Alternative Dispute Resolution for the disputed domain name on April 25, 2018. The Domain Holder has been given an opportunity to submit a reply, but no reply has been filed by the Domain Holder within the given deadline.
The Petitioner, See Group Limited, that was founded 25 years ago, in a record shop, is today one of the largest ticketing companies in the world and uses “See Tickets” as the trade name for its services. The Petitioner serves more than 5,000 promoters, festivals, performance venues, sporting events and monuments including Glastonbury Festival, Manchester City FC, Universal Music Group, Street Food Cinema, Beautycon, Spring Awakening and The Eiffel Tower. The Petitioner operates under the See Tickets brand in the United States of America (“US”) and the UK.
The Petitioner has invoked European Union trademark SEE TICKETS No 3124286 that was registered on January 25, 2005. The Petitioner is also the owner of the domain name , registered on March 28, 2003.
The disputed domain name was registered by the Domain Holder on December 20, 2017 and is today linked to a website with pay-per- click links related to the Petitioner’s activity. 5. Claim
The Petitioner claims that the disputed domain name shall be transferred to the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Petitioner elects to have the dispute decided as an Accelerated Proceeding if the Domain Holder does not respond to the Petition. 6. Parties’ Contentions A. Petitioner
The Petitioner owns the European trademark (EUTM) for SEE TICKETS No 3124286, which covers Sweden and contends that it is identical to the disputed domain name . Furthermore, the Petitioner contends that the addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) “.se” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark SEE TICKETS of the Petitioner.
The website in connection with the disputed domain name displays pay-per-click links related to the Petitioner’s activity since its registration and without any modification since its registration. The Petitioner claims that the Domain Holder leads traffic to its own website by using the Petitioner’s trademark and then increases revenue through the sponsored links.
Moreover, the website proposes to buy the domain name in French (“Acheter ce domaine”) on the top of the page and redirects the user to the form for acquiring the disputed domain name. Past .se panels have found that domain names, leading to a website with pay-per-click links and information that the domain name is for sale, have been registered and used in bad faith. See Statoil ASA v. Limited D-Max, D-Max Ltd., WIPO Case No. DSE2017-0038. On those facts, the Petitioner contends that the disputed domain name was registered for the purposes of preventing the Petitioner to register its trademark as a domain name and of increasing his income. Furthermore, the Domain Holder has not put forward any evidence that show that the domain name was registered or was used in good faith.
The Petitioner contends that the Domain Holder has no rights or justified interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Petitioner. The Petitioner does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Domain Holder.
Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Domain Holder to make any use of the trademark SEE TICKETS, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Petitioner. Thus, the Domain Holder has registered the disputed domain name with the aims to prevent the Petitioner to register it, and to divert Internet traffic, and to increase his income.
In consequence, the Domain Holder has no rights or justified interests in respect of the disputed domain name . B. Domain Holder
The Domain Holder has not filed any reply or comments to the Petition. 7. Discussion and Findings
A domain name may, in accordance with the .se Policy paragraph 7.2, be deregistered or transferred to the party requesting dispute resolution proceedings if all of the following three conditions are fulfilled:
1. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the party requesting dispute resolution can prove its rights, and
2. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith, and
3. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Name.
All three conditions must be met in order for a petitioner to succeed in its action. A. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights
The Petitioner is the owner of the EUTM No 3124286 SEE TICKETS (word), which is identical to the disputed domain name. B. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith
The Arbitrator concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered long after the registration of the Petitioner’s trademark. The Petitioner has contended that the disputed domain name was registered for the purposes of preventing the Petitioner to register its trademark as a domain name and to increase his income. In the absence of any facts or comments in the case contradicting the claims presented by the Petitioner, it may be considered that the Domain Holder has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. C. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Name
The Domain Holder has not submitted any reply to the Petition and there is nothing else in the case stating that the Domain Holder has a right or justified interest in the disputed domain name. Linking of the disputed domain name to pay-per-click links without presenting any motives for such use is not sufficient for the Arbitrator to consider the Domain Holder to have any right or justified interest in the disputed domain name. The Arbitrator therefore concludes that the Domain Holder has no right or justified interest in the disputed domain name. 8. Decision
The disputed domain name shall be transferred to the Petitioner.
Bengt Eliasson
Date: July 12, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy