WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION SeatGeek, Inc. v. Nash Enterprises, Inc. Case No. D2019-0415 1. The Parties

Complainant is SeatGeek, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

Respondent is Nash Enterprises, Inc. of Mineola, New York, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 21, 2019. On February 22, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On February 22, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the 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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 1, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 21, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 22, 2019.

The Center appointed Jordan S. Weinstein as the sole panelist in this matter on April 4, 2019. 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.
On April 18, 2019, the Center informed the parties that the Decision due date had been extended to April 25, 2019 due to exceptional circumstances. 4. Factual Background

Complainant is a New York-based company specializing in event ticket aggregation. Complainant’s trademark SEATGEEK has been registered as a trademark in the United States since November, 29, 2011, under registration number 4062477. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 28, 2015. Currently, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parked website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Complainant, SeatGeek, Inc., asserts that it is a New York-based company founded in 2009, specializing in event ticket aggregation, that allows customers to browse seats available at events and purchase them. Complainant asserts that its brand SEATGEEK has been used in trade since 2009. The term SEATGEEK is derived from the two English words “seat” and “geek” which are suggestive of Complainant’s expertise.

Complainant asserts that its SEATGEEK service has been widely covered in the media, such as being profiled as “The Hottest Ticket In Mobile” by Forbes magazine, and as a finalist at the 2009 TechCrunch50 conference.

Complainant asserts that its SEATGEEK services are available on desktop computers and through a mobile app. Complainant asserts that its website, “”, is one of the most used event ticketing sites on the Internet, and its app is ranked number 33 for “Entertainment” apps on Apple devices.

Complainant asserts that it has undertaken many partnerships in order to expand its SEATGEEK brand, including partnerships with the social media app Snapchatand the transportation app Lyft. Complainant asserts that these partnerships have allowed the SEATGEEK brand to permeate many sectors, increasing its visibility and accessibility.

Complainant asserts that it has partnerships with popular professional sports teams and major sports leagues, allowing fans to access and purchase tickets.

Complainant asserts that it has established a social media presence and uses its trademark SEATGEEK to promote its services on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks a right or a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name because Respondent has no trademark rights to the term “SEATGEEK”, no unregistered trademark rights to the term “SEATGEEK”, and no license from Complainant to use domain names featuring the SEATGEEK trademark.

Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been known by, or offered any services using, the term “SEATGEEK”, that there is no evidence that Respondentis commonly referred to as “SEATGEEK”, or that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.

Complainant asserts that Respondent has made no bona fide offering of goods or services attached to the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant asserts that before it sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent, the Disputed Domain Name redirected to a domain name auction site. Complainant asserts that it received no response to the letter, but that Respondent updated the Disputed Domain Name to direct to a parked page which states that the Disputed Domain Name is for sale through an auction. Complainant asserts that, given the distinctive nature of the SEATGEEK trademark, there is no evidence of the Disputed Domain Name being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is not a generic or descriptive term that would be used by a trader in order to attract traffic for the sale of domain names, that the term “SEATGEEK” has no relation or suggestive meaning attached to the sale of domain names, and that given the unique and distinctive nature of Complainant’s SEATGEEK mark, it is implausible that Respondent chose the Disputed Domain Name for purposes other than to exploit Complainant’s trademark to attract Internet traffic for Respondent’s own financial gain.

Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name for domain name auction services, of the Disputed Domain Name and others, with actual or constructive notice of Complainant’s trademark rights. Because Complainant’s US trademark registration predates the creation of the Disputed Domain Name by four years, and because of the substantial goodwill Complainant asserts its SEATGEEK trademark has acquired since 2009, Complainant asserts that it is implausible fo