Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Promote It Like A Rock Star / Travis Salsman
Claim Number: FA1703001721165
Complainant is Anheuser-Busch, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Myers Dill of HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP, Missouri, USA. Respondent is Promote It Like A Rock Star / Travis Salsman (“Respondent”), Nevada, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <budlight.vegas>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 10, 2017; the Forum received payment on March 10, 2017.
On March 13, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <budlight.vegas> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 March 20, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 10, 2017 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@budlight.vegas. Also on March 20, 2017, 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 April 18, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have this dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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 a response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, doing business under the name and mark BUD LIGHT, is a brewer and marketer of beer.
Complainant holds a registration for the trademark BUD LIGHT, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 4,253,281, registered December 4, 2012.
Respondent registered the domain name <budlight.vegas> on October 25, 2016.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BUD LIGHT mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the BUD LIGHT mark in any respect.
Respondent has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Currently, the domain name resolves to an inactive GoDaddy page indicating that the site is parked and not in use.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the BUD LIGHT mark when it registered the domain name.
Respondent both registered and now uses the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, in an email message addressed to the Forum, Respondent has declared as follows:
“I will gladly give you and your clients the domain…. [and] I will gladly release it to whoever your client is.”
We have already noted that Complainant has requested in its Complaint that the domain name <budlight.vegas> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. In light of such a request, Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following in order to obtain from a Panel a decision that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the same domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a [UDRP] 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.”
Further, Policy Paragraph 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions. See, for example, Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum January 13, 2004:
[T]he parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties … are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005):
[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.
DECISION
Respondent does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, and, in particular, it does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. Rather, in the face of Complainant’s demand that the domain name be transferred to it, Respondent has expressed in writing its willingness to surrender it. Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.
It is therefore Ordered that the <budlight.vegas> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: April 19, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page