Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Sampson, Matthew
Claim Number: FA1602001660086
Complainant is Coachella Music Festival, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Matthew Sampson (“Respondent”), Nevada, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <coachella-weekend2frontgatetickets.com>, registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
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.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 8, 2016; the Forum received payment on February 8, 2016.
On February 9, 2016, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coachella-weekend2frontgatetickets.com> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 February 11, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 2016 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@coachella-weekend2frontgatetickets.com. Also on February 11, 2016, 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 March 7, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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.
Complainant
Complainant has rights in the COACHELLA mark through several registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,196,119, registered January 9, 2007). Complainant uses the mark in connection with its annual music festival. Respondent’s domain <coachella-weekend2frontgatetickets.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark because it only adds a hyphen and the descriptive phrase “weekend2frontgatetickets” to the mark, as well as the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been licensed to use Complainant’s mark. Further, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is being used as a parking page for links to Complainant as well as third parties (e.g., “Coachella,” “Coachella Fest Tickets,” and “Show Tickets”).
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed <coachella-weekend2frontgatetickets.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business through using Complainant’s mark to link to Complainant’s competitors. Furthermore, Respondent is using the similarity between the <coachella-weekend2frontgatetickets.com> domain and the COACHELLA mark to attract and profit from Internet users who believe the domain to be affiliated with Complainant.
Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <coachella-weekend2frontgatetickets.com> domain name.
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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Complainant asserts its rights in the COACHELLA mark based on several registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,196,119, registered January 9, 2007). Panels have routinely found that registration with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate a Respondent’s rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. v. David Mizer Enters., Inc., FA 622122 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 14, 2006) (finding that the complainant’s registration of the ENTERPRISE, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, and ENTERPRISE CAR SALES marks with the USPTO satisfied the requirement of demonstrating rights in the mark under consideration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds complainant has rights in the COACHELLA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <coachella-weekend2frontgatetickets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark because it only adds the descriptive phrase “weekend2frontgatetickets” to the mark, as well as the gTLD “.com.” Panels have routinely determined that the addition of descriptive terms to a mark does not distinguish a domain name from a registered mark. See Google Inc. v. Xtraplus Corp., D2001-0125 (WIPO Apr. 16, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as “buy” or “gear” to the end). Additionally, panels have consistently held that a gTLD is irrelevant when considering confusing similarity. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. To support this contention, Complainant claims that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name or been licensed to use the COACHELLA mark in any manner. WHOIS information lists the registrant as “Sampson, Matthew” which does not resemble the disputed domain name. Panels have found that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name based on WHOIS information and a lack of information in the record to the contrary. See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute). Given the available information, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the domain name to resolve to a website displaying links to Complainant’s competitors does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed <coachella-weekend2frontgatetickets.com> domain displays various click-through advertisements with titles such as “Coachella,” “Show Tickets,” and “Tinthepark Tickets.” Panels have held that using a disputed domain to sell a complainant’s or a complainant’s competitors’ products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Skyhawke Techs., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s use does not fall within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to its own website, through which Respondent hosts hyperlinks to businesses that compete with Complainant. Panels have treated such behavior as an indication of a respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (“Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a parking website which provides click through revenue to Respondent and which displays links to travel-related products and services that directly compete with Complainant’s business. Accordingly, Respondent’s competing use of the disputed domain name is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name to attract confused Internet users to its own website, at which Respondent offers competitive hyperlinks, demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Past panels have agreed with similar arguments. See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant has proved this element.
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 <coachella-weekend2frontgatetickets.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
__________________________________________________________________
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 8, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page