Wwe.vegas

The timeline behind wwe.vegas

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 World Wrestling Entertainment, LLC v. Shawn Zarek Williams, WEBDOMAIN.VEGAS INC. Case No. D2025-3919 1. The Parties Complainant is World Wrestling Entertainment, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States. Respondent is Shawn Zarek Williams, WEBDOMAIN.VEGAS INC., United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <wwe.vegas> (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 September 25, 2025. On September 26, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the Domain Name. On September 27, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation f or the Domain Name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (Registration Private/ Domains by Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email to Complainant on September 29, 2025, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 30, 2025. Respondent sent emails to the Center on September 29 and 30, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the page 2 due date f or Response was October 20, 2025. Respondent sent further emails to the Center on October 1, 7 and 21, 2025, but Respondent did not submit any f o rmal response. The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on October 29, 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 According to the Complaint: “Complainant is a part of TKO Group Holdings (“TKO”), a publicly traded company (NYSE: TKO). TKO is a premium sports and sports entertainment company that operates leading combat sport and sports entertainment companies and that is comprised of Complainant, a renowned sports entertainment business; and UFC, the world’s premier mixed martial arts organization.” “TKO’s properties reach one billion households across 210 countries and territories and organize more than 500 live events year-round, attracting more than three million f ans. TKO also services and partners with major sports rights holders through IMG, an industry-leading global sports marketing agency; and On Location, a global leader in premium experiential hospitality.” According to TKO’s 2024 annual report, TKO had annual revenue of more than USD 2 billion, of which nearly USD 1.4 billion was attributable to Complainant. TKO has more than 1,300 employees in 12 countries. Complainant alleges f urther: “Complainant creates and delivers original content 52 weeks a year to a global audience. Complainant is committed to family-friendly entertainment on its television programming, premium live events, digital media, and publishing platf orms. Complainant’s TV-PG programming can be seen in more than one billion households worldwide in more than 20 languages through world-class distribution partners including NBCUniversal, The CW and Netflix. In the United States, NBCUniversal’s streaming service, Peacock, is the exclusive home to all premium live events, a variety of original programming and a massive video-on- demand library. Netflix is the exclusive home f or WWE programming around the world, other than select international markets.” “Complainant has approximately 380 million social media followers. With more than 100 million subscribers, Complainant is the 13th most-viewed channel across all categories on YouTube.” “As of December 31, 2024, there were approximately 230 WWE ‘Superstars,’ or independent contractors, under contract f rom more than 20 countries.” Complainant owns hundreds of registered trademarks worldwide f or the mark WWE or marks containing WWE. For instance, Complainant owns United States Reg. No. 2,772,683 for the mark WWE, registered on October 7, 2003 in connection with “entertainment services, namely, the production and exhibition of prof essional wrestling events rendered live and through the medium of television, providing wrestling news and inf ormation via a global computer network.” Complainant also owns Canadian Reg. No. TMA609412 f or the mark WWE, registered on May 5, 2004 in connection with, among other things, magnets, posters, photographs, clothing, toy action f igures and accessories. Complainant has owned the domain name <wwe.com> since May 30, 1995, and has used that domain name to host its commercial website and promote its goods and services. page 3 As noted in the Complaint, several previous UDRP panels have recognized Complainant’s WWE trademark as “f amo us” o r “well-known.” The Domain Name was registered on May 27, 2025. The Domain Name resolves to a f airly rudimentary web page containing several hyperlinks. According to Complainant: “Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a pay-per-click (‘PPC’) or monetized parking page that includes links for various services that are related to Complainant’s services and its WWE Trademark [...], including ‘Wrestling Games’, ‘Raw Tickets’, ‘Ticketmaster Wwe Raw’, and ‘WWE Wrestling’.” According to Complainant, “Raw” is the name of one of its “flagship shows,” and Complainant has used RAW as a trademark f or more than 20 years. Annexed to the Complaint are documents corroborating the existence of Complainant’s RAW trademark and the content of Respondent’s website. In its amended Complaint, after having received further registration details concerning the Domain Name and Respondent’s identity, Complainant noted that Respondent had been f ound to have registered and used other domain names in bad faith in two prior UDRP proceedings, and that Respondent had registered at least 11 other domain names with the gTLD .vegas and a f amous brand, such as <cadillac.vegas>, <lysol.vegas>, <netf lix.vegas>, and <walgreens.vegas>. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. With respect to bad f aith registration and use of the domain name, Complainant argues: “[P]anels have repeatedly held that using a domain name in connection with a monetized parking page under the circumstances present here – including links labeled “Wrestling Games” and “Raw Tickets” [...], which are associated with the services described by Complainant’s WWE Trademark [...] – constitutes bad f aith.” In support of this proposition, Complainant cites several UDRP decisions, including Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. North West Enterprise, Inc., WIPO Case No . D2006-0951. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a formal Response in this proceeding. As noted above, however, Respondent sent a series of emails to the Center. On September 29, 2025, Respondent wrote in part: “To pursuant to Article WWE.VEGAS; We do hereby will counter sue and summons/extradite to the US COURTS to be imprisoned for fraud and harassment Suspects: [Complainant’s counsel and the Center’s case manager]/ A Cease and Desist or a violation of ICANN and the FTC [United States Federal Trade Commission] will be brought up against you and the WIPO. We Request that a cease and desist be f iled against yourself or we will f ine your company and af f iliates USD 100,000 f or harassment. 1st Warning.” On September 30, 2025, Respondent sent at least three emails. In the f irst, claimed that the two prior UDRP cases in which he had been f ound in bad f aith resulted in the trademark owner complainants paying Respondent to acquire the domain names. Respondent provided purported prices f or each domain name page 4 sale, but provided no evidence f or his claims. In the second, Respondent largely railed against Complainant’s counsel and his law f irm. In the third, Respondent wrote: “I agree to lock domain. I also agree that [Complainant’s counsel] agree to reimburse Shawn Z Williams [Respondent] for GODADDY renew f ees for over 12 years and purchase price. Total USD 100,000. When f unds have been transferred then GODADDY will unlock to give to the other party. Thanks f or your help to create a diplomatic solution to this unf ortunate situation.” On October 1, 2025, Respondent sent the Center an email largely criticizing Complainant’s counsel, and threatening to sue for defamation and discrimination. This was the last email of any arguable substance submitted by Respondent in this proceeding. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisf y with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark WWE t hro ugh extensive registration and longstanding and widespread use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is identical to the WWE mark. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the f ollowing elements: (i) bef ore any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of , or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the Domain Name, without intent f or commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Other than making an unsupported and implausible assertion about having managed to sell two domain names not involved in this proceeding but in prior UDRP cases, and doling out various insults to Complainant and its counsel, Respondent has not come forward to dispute Complainant’s plausible allegations about the f ame of the WWE mark, Respondent’s lack of any legitimate interest in the Domain Name, and the claim that Respondent is deriving per-click revenue f rom the website associated with the Domain Name. From the record presented here, the Panel finds it obvious that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its WWE mark when he registered the Domain Name. This finding is bolstered by the f act that one of the page 5 hyperlinks at Respondent’s site made reference to RAW, another of Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel also f inds it clear f rom this record that Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to siphon of f Internet traf fic to its own website to derive commercial benefit on the back of the fame of Complainant and its WWE trademark. Such conduct is plainly illegitimate. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad f aith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily f or the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transf erring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, f or valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that Respondent has 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, f or commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of conf usion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad f aith. The Panel incorporates here its discussion above in the “Rights or Legitimate Interests” section. It is clear that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name. The ref erence to RAW and to WWE, as well as the wrestling-related hyperlinks, make this conclusion virtually inescapable. Respondent’s use of the Domain Name constitutes bad f aith use within the meaning of the above-quoted Policy p arag rap h 4(b )(iv). Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 <wwe.vegas> be transf erred to Complainant. /Robert A. Badgley/ Robert A. Badgley Sole Panelist Date: November 7, 2025

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