## Facts

- The Orange Bowl Committee organized the well-known “Orange Bowl” college football game and related events and used the ORANGE BOWL mark since 1935.
- The Committee sold tickets and merchandise under the ORANGE BOWL mark, including through its own websites, and asserted longstanding goodwill and public recognition in the mark.
- Front and Center Tickets, Inc./Front and Center Entertainment operated an online ticket-resale business for sports and entertainment events.
- Respondent registered `<orangebowltickets.net>` in 1999 and used it to market Orange Bowl tickets alongside many unrelated tickets (e.g., other sports, shows, and competing events).
- During the proceeding, Respondent voluntarily transferred `<orangebowl.net>` to Complainant; the dispute proceeded primarily as to `<orangebowltickets.net>`.
- Complainant initiated a UDRP proceeding seeking transfer of the domain name; a three-member panel was appointed.
- The record reflected Respondent’s involvement in prior UDRP disputes concerning event-ticket domains incorporating third-party sports marks.

## Issues

1. Whether `<orangebowltickets.net>` is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ORANGE BOWL mark under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i).
2. Whether Respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, including whether a ticket reseller’s use constituted fair or descriptive use under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) and ¶ 4(c).
3. Whether Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith, including under UDRP ¶ 4(b)(iv), by attracting users for commercial gain through confusion as to affiliation.

## Decision

- The panel majority found `<orangebowltickets.net>` confusingly similar to the ORANGE BOWL mark.
- The panel majority found Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
- The panel majority found Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
- The panel ordered transfer of `<orangebowltickets.net>` to Complainant.
- One panelist dissented, favoring a broader view of permissible reseller use.

## Legal Principles

- A domain name is confusingly similar under the UDRP when it incorporates a complainant’s mark in a recognizable manner; adding a descriptive term such as “tickets” typically does not prevent confusing similarity.
- A reseller’s claimed legitimate interest may fail where the trademark in the domain name functions as the site’s primary identifier to draw traffic, rather than as a limited descriptive reference to the reseller’s services.
- Use of a trademark in a domain name can be inconsistent with fair or descriptive use where the site markets goods or services beyond those suggested by the domain name, including unrelated products or competing events.
- “Initial interest confusion” may support findings against legitimate interest and in favor of bad faith when the domain name suggests sponsorship or affiliation and diverts users before any clarification occurs.
- Bad faith under UDRP ¶ 4(b)(iv) is shown where the respondent uses the domain to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.
- A respondent’s pattern of registering domains incorporating famous marks for a ticket-resale business may support inferences of lack of legitimate interest and bad faith.

## Conclusion

The panel majority ordered transfer of `<orangebowltickets.net>`, concluding that incorporating the famous ORANGE BOWL mark with “tickets” created actionable confusion, that Respondent’s ticket-resale use was not a legitimate fair use because it traded on the mark to divert traffic to broader ticket sales, and that the registration and use were in bad faith based on commercial gain from likely confusion and initial diversion.


The Orange Bowl Comm., Inc. v. Front & Ctr. Tickets, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-0947 (2005)