Margaritaville Enterprises, LLC v. Steven Pignataro
Claim Number: FA2112001976485
Complainant is Margaritaville Enterprises, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Joel R. Feldman of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Steven Pignataro (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <margaritavilleparadise.com>, registered with Google LLC.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 8, 2021. The Forum received payment on December 8, 2021.
On December 9, 2021, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <margaritavilleparadise.com> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 10, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 30, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@margaritavilleparadise.com. Also on December 10, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 4, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The fanciful mark MARGARITAVILLE is based on Jimmy Buffett’s 1977 hit song “Margaritaville.” Complainant has used the MARGARITAVILLE mark extensively for a wide variety of goods and services, including real estate services, hotel services, entertainment services, fan club services, clothing, restaurant services, bar services and retail store services.
Complainant has rights in the MARGARITAVILLE mark through registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <margaritavilleparadise.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARGARITAVILLE mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <margaritavilleparadise.com> domain name. Respondent is not an authorized user or licensee of Complainant’s MARGARITAVILLE mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the domain name resolves to a parked webpage that advertises the domain name for sale.
Respondent registered the <margaritavilleparadise.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark, evidenced by the notoriety and fame of the mark, and uses it in bad faith because the domain name resolves to a parked website which offers the domain name for sale.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the MARGARITAVILLE mark through registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,855,017, registered on Sep. 28, 2010). The Panel finds Respondent’s <margaritavilleparadise.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARGARITAVILLE mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, only adding the descriptive term “paradise”, which does not distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent 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) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <margaritavilleparadise.com> domain name was registered on December 27, 2018, many years after Complainant has shown that its MARGARITAVILLE mark had become very well-known. It resolves to “www.argondomains.com”, a parked page advertising the domain name for sale.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <margaritavilleparadise.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019) (“According to the majority of Panel decisions this Panel also takes the position that while Complainant has the burden of proof on this issue, once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.”).
Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion 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 its website or location.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s well-known MARGARITAVILLE mark when Respondent registered the <margaritavilleparadise.com> domain name and that the domain name was registered and is being used in violation of Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <margaritavilleparadise.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: January 5, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page