Lumineerstour2025.com

The timeline behind lumineerstour2025.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION The Lumineers, LLC v. Mark Halloran Case No. D2024-4633 1. The Parties Complainant is The Lumineers, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Creative Law Network, LLC, United States. Respondent is Mark Halloran, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <lumineerstour2025.com> (hereinafter “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 11, 2024. On November 12, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 13, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 14, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 14, 2024. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 15, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 5, 2024. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 13, 2024. page 2 The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on December 18, 2024. 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 the business entity that owns the trademark THE LUMINEERS (hereinafter the “Mark”), used for a popular folk-rock music group that has announced dates and locations for several concerts in 2025. Complainant owns many trademark registrations, including: - United States Trademark Registration No. 4,406,896 (Registered September 24, 2013); and - Canadian Trademark Registration No. TMA900,905 (Registered April 13, 2015). Complainant owns the domain <thelumineers.com>, which resolves to a website where Complainant has published information about its plans for its upcoming concert tour, which begins in January 2025. The dates and venues are listed, with links for “Tickets” that lead to third-party websites that offers to sell tickets to Complainant’s concerts. The Disputed Domain Name, which was registered December 28, 2023, resolves to a webpage (hereinafter the “Disputed Website”) that publishes the schedule for Complainant’s 2025 tour dates and venues, plus hyperlinks labeled “Tickets” that lead to <t icketnetwork.com>, which resolves to a website that offers to sell tickets to Complainant’s concerts, and discloses that “Ticket Network is a resale marketplace, not a box office or venue”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between Complainant’s trademark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. page 3 The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name lacks “the”, which article is included in the Mark, and adds “tour 2025”, but these differences do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a Disputed Domain Name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. For two reasons, Respondent does not satisfy Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 , which applies to ticket resellers. First, Respondent does not accurately and prominently disclose that it does not have any relationship with Complainant. The Disputed Website does not include an explicit disclaimer or identify the entity or persons responsible for the website. The text is generally self-laudatory in a style one would expect from the band itself, such as the first few sentences sentence on the first page: The Lumineers are a one-of-a-kind band in a world obsessed with novelty. This means that folk-rock lovers are in for a treat as the band prepares to go on a 2025 tour. It is turning out to be a journey through the band’s vast library of music, coupled with the intimate and raw performances they are known for. An Internet visitor does not get a hint that the Disputed Website is not produced by Complainant until the third page, where the text reads: “Fans should expect updates regarding ticketing information such as prices from The Lumineers official website soonest possible.” This statement acknowledges that there is an “official website”, but it does not disclaim a relationship to Complainant and its position on the third page (without any differentiating font styling) is not sufficiently prominent to satisfy Oki Data. Second, Respondent does not itself sell tickets but instead includes links to a third-party reseller. In the Panel’s view, this is analogous to a Pay-P er-C lick (PPC) site that simply refers to third party vendors. “Panels have found that PPC websites do not normally meet the Oki Data requirements as they do not themselves directly offer the goods or services at issue.” WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.8.1. page 4 Moreover, there is a high risk of implied affiliation because the Disputed Domain Name consists of the Mark plus the additional phrase “tour 2025”, which merely refers to Complainant’s concerts. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.5.1.; Eli Lilly and Company and Novartis Tiergesundheit AG v. Manny Ghumman / Mr. NYOB / Jesse Padilla, WIPO Case No. D2016-1698. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent targeted Complainant and intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s Mark. This is bad faith registration and use. Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). Compare The Lumineers, LLC v. Super Privacy Service Ltd C/O Dynadot / Andrey Weprikov, WIPO Case No. D2022-1637 (<thelumineers2022.com> transferred); The Lumineers, LLC v. Ansh Shishir Ahmed, Bing Event, WIPO Case No. D2019-2678 (<lumineers-tour.com> transferred). The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element of 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 <lumineerstour2025.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Lawrence K. Nodine/ Lawrence K. Nodine Sole Panelist Date: January 1, 2025

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.