2028olympicsairtaxis.com

The timeline behind 2028olympicsairtaxis.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Los Angeles Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games 2028, United States Olympic and Paralympic Properties, LLC v. Lawrence Washington Case No. D2025-2913 1. The Parties Complainants are Los Angeles Organizing Committee f or the Olympic and Paralympic Games 2028, and United States Olympic and Paralympic Properties, LLC, United States of America (the “United States”), represented by Alston & Bird, LLP, United States. Respondent is Lawrence Washington, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <2028olympicsairtaxis.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 22, 2025. On July 23, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the Domain Name and other domain names. On July 23, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation f or the Domain Name and other domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainants on July 24, 2025 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar(s), requesting Complainants to either file separate complaint(s) f or the Domain Name and other domain names associated with dif f erent underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. Complainants filed an amended Complaint on July 26, 2025 withdrawing the other domain names f rom the Complaint. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” o r “UDRP”), the Rules f o r Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was August 19, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied Respondent’s def ault on August 20, 2025. The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on August 26, 2025. The Panel f inds 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 f irst co-Complainant, the Los Angeles Organizing Committee f or the Olympic and Paralympic Games 2028 (“LA28”), is the organizing committee f or the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Summer Games and Paralympic Summer Games (“2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games”). The second co-Complainant, the United States Olympic and Paralympic Properties, LLC (“USOPP”), is the entity charged with marketing and selling combined commercial assets and rights to the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (“USOPC”), a non-profit corporation, was chartered by Congress to coordinate, promote, and govern all international amateur athletic activities in the United States. The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act grants the USOPC and its partners (including the organizing committees for any given Olympic Games year) the exclusive rights to certain marks and symbols related to the Olympics, including the OLYMPIC, Olympic rings, and host city name marks, such as LOS ANGELES 2028 and LA 2028. Through its contractual intellectual property licensing arrangements with the USOPC, Complainants have certain rights to exploit and defend against the infringement of the intellectual property rights related to the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, including the OLYMPIC marks, examples of which include: - United States registered trademark number 72381518 f or the OLYMPIC word mark, registered on September 18, 1973; - United States registered trademark number 75598229 f or the OLYMPIC word mark, registered on January 25, 2000; and - United States registered trademark number 78145195 f or the OLYMPIC word mark, registered on October 28, 2003. The Domain Name was registered on May 18, 2025 and at the time of filing of the Complaint, it resolved to a parking page of the Registrar, featuring the banner “2028 OLYMPICS AIR TAXIS”, stating that the website is “launching soon”, prompting users to “Contact Us” and to “Sign up for our email list for updates, promotions, and more.” The site f urther listed a copyright notice of “2025-2028 Olympics Air Taxis – All Rights Reserved.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants Complainants contend that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. Complainants contend that (i) the Domain Name is identical or conf usingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad f aith. page 3 In particular, Complainants contend that they have trademark registrations f or OLYMPIC and that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name with the intention to confuse Internet users looking for bona f ide and well-known OLYMPIC products and services. Complainants note that it has no affiliation with Respondent, nor authorized Respondent to register or use the Domain Name, which includes Complainants’ trademarks, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name. Rather, Complainants contend that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainants’ rights. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed, Complainants must satisf y the Panel that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad f aith. Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states that failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s def ault is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. Thus, although in this case Respondent has f ailed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainants to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No . D2006-0340. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainants have provided evidence of their rights in the OLYMPIC trademarks, as noted above. With Complainants’ rights in the OLYMPIC trademarks established, the remaining question under the f irst element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in which it is registered (in this case, “.com”), is identical or conf usingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No . D2010-0842. Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s OLYMPIC trademarks. These trademarks are recognizable in the Domain Name. In particular, the Domain Name includes Complainant’s OLYMPIC trademarks in their entirety, with the addition of the numerals “2028” – the year of the next Olympic Games in Los Angeles – preceding the OLYMPIC mark, the addition of the letter “s” f ollowing Complainant’s trademark OLYMPIC, and the addition of the terms “air” and “taxis” in the Domain Name. The addition of the numerals “2028”, the letter “s” and the terms “air” and “taxis” in the Domain Name as noted does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the Domain Name and Complainants’ OLYMPIC trademarks. page 4 Thus, the Panel f inds that Complainants have satisf ied the f irst element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima f acie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima f acie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP. From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainants and their trademarks, and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainants have conf irmed that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainants, or otherwise authorized or licensed to use Complainants’ trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the trademarks. Respondent is also not known to be associated with the OLYMPIC trademarks and there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. Further, the nature of the Domain Name comprising Complainants’ trademarks in their entirety, with the inclusion of the numerals “2028” – which signify the year of the next Olympic games in Los Angeles –, the addition of the letter “s” after the OLYMPIC mark and the addition of the terms “air” and “taxis”, indicate an awareness of Complainants. In the present circumstances, the Domain Name resolved to a parking page of the Registrar, f eaturing the banner “2028 OLYMPICS AIR TAXIS”, stating that the website is “launching soon”, prompting users to “Contact Us” and to “Sign up f or our email list f or updates, promotions, and more.” Such use of the Domain Name is misleading and such potential attempts to reach Complainants’ OLYMPIC participants, attendees or audience, may result in giving the f alse impression to Internet users that the Domain Name is owned by Complainant. Accordingly, Complainants have provided evidence supporting its prima f acie claim that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has f ailed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainants have met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel f inds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad f aith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from ref lecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily f or the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or page 5 (iv) b y using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, f or commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The Panel f inds that Complainants have provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the OLYMPIC trademarks long predate the registration of the Domain Name. Complainants are also well established and known. Indeed, the record shows that Complainants’ OLYMPIC trademarks and related products and services are widely known and recognized. Further, the nature of the Domain Name comprising Complainant’s trademarks in their entirety, with the inclusion of the numerals “2028” – which signify the year of the next Olympic games in Los Angeles –, the addition of the letter “s” after the OLYMPIC mark and the addition of the terms “air” and “taxis”, indicate an awareness of Complainants and the OLYMPIC trademarks when it registered the Domain Name. The Panel theref ore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad f aith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No . D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No . D2001-1070; and BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No . D2006-0007. Here, the webpage f eatures a banner “2028 OLYMPICS AIR TAXIS”, stating that the website is “launching soon”, prompting users to “Contact Us” and to “Sign up for our email list for updates, promotions, and more.” The resulting confusion from such potential impersonation and/or communications could cause damage to Complainants’ reputation and goodwill, and interfere with Complainants’ business activities. Such use shows Respondent’s acts of bad f aith, and is not rebutted by Respondent. As noted above, at the time of filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a parking page of the Registrar. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of Complainants’ trademarks, and the composition of the Domain Name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a f inding of bad f aith under the Policy. Finally, considering the distinctiveness and reputation of the OLYMPIC trademarks, the f ailure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good f aith use, and particularly noting the Domain Name clearly targeted Complainants, the Panel f inds that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith and Complainants succeed under the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <2028olympicsairtaxis.com> be transf erred to Complainants. /Kimberley Chen Nobles/ Kimberley Chen Nobles Sole Panelist Date: September 9, 2025

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