WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Seatgeek, Inc. v. Sean Lankford Case No. DCO2018-0022 1. The Parties

Complainant is Seatgeek, Inc. of Milton Keynes, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.

Respondent is Sean Lankford of North Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The Disputed Domain Name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 6, 2018. On July 9, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 10, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on July 12, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 26, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 30, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 19, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 20, 2018.

The Center appointed Roberto Bianchi as the sole panelist in this matter on August 24, 2018. 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

Complainant is a media and entertainment company that specializes in ticket search and price forecasting services, with headquarters in New York.

Complainant owns the following trademark registrations:

JURISDICTION

TRADEMARK

REGISTRATION No.

REGISTRATION DATE

INTERNATIONAL CLASSES

INTERNATIONAL

SEATGEEK

1404970

March 13, 2018

9, 35, 41, 42

UNITED STATES

SEATGEEK

4062477

November 29, 2011

EUROPEAN UNION

SEATGEEK

014248711

October 14, 2015

9, 35, 41

CANADA

SEATGEEK

TMA966186

March 20, 2017

9, 35, 41, 42

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on August 28, 2014.

The website at the Disputed Domain Name currently is inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

The Disputed Domain Name is Identical to Complainant’s marks. Complainant’s SEATGEEK mark is recognizable within the limits of the second level domain name. There is undoubtedly an identical or confusing similarity between them that inherently exists without any adornment. The extension “.co” can be disregarded.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has not registered any trademarks for the term “SEATGEEK”. Complainant cannot conceive of any plausible explanation as to why Respondent would have a legitimate interest in a domain name that is clearly associated with Complainant.

Despite Respondent claiming in an email that the Disputed Domain Name was registered by a “client” for a “project”, Respondent has made no attempt to use the Disputed Domain Name and associated website for any legitimate business purpose. Since registration, the Disputed Domain Name has resolved to a Pay-Per-Click (PPC) parking page with links related to concert tickets, sport events and live event tickets. SeeAnnex G.

Respondent has never been licensed or authorized in any way by Complainant to use the distinctive SEATGEEK mark. Moreover, Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in anyway whatsoever and could not make any legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name given the prior use, reputation and goodwill associated with Complainant’s brand. Respondent is capitalizing on the reputation and goodwill of Complainant’s brand and gaining monetary compensation in the process. Respondent achieves this through numerous sponsored advertisements listed on the website at the Disputed Domain Name.

The Disputed Domain Name is listed for sale and has been since its registration in 2014. SeeAnnex H. Without any justification for registering a domain name identical to Complainant’s mark, it can only be concluded that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in an attempt to sell it for profit.

Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Upon contacting Respondent on January 16, 2018, Complainant’s representative received a response from a person identifying themselves as “Client agent/Charles”. While the response claimed to be written on behalf of an alleged representative of the registrant, the response came from the email address “[…]@”, which has been connected to an individual by the name of Tao Wang. No further explanation or justification from Respondent or its alleged representative was provided.

Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant submits that Respondent would have had sufficient knowledge of Complainant’s rights at the time of registration. Complainant has spent a considerable amount of time and resources to enable SEATGEEK to become a recognized brand globally and a significant player in a USD 5 billion secondary market. In particular, Complainant’s web-based platform is the foundation of its business, enabling users to purchase and sell event tickets for 123,379 events, 538,494 teams and artists, and across 383,380 venues, making it the largest inventory of live event tickets on the internet. Even a cursory Internet search on the part of Respondent would have disclosed the SEATGEEKbrand and its extensive use by Complainant. For example, searches for “seat geek” on Google reveal results on the first page exclusively for Complainant. SeeAnnex J.

Panels accept that there is some obligation on the part of respondents to avoi