Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Emma Alexander
Claim Number: FA1805001786289
Complainant is Coachella Music Festival, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Emma Alexander (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <coachellaofficialguide.com>, (the “Domain Name”) registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 13, 2018; the Forum received payment on May 13, 2018.
On May 14, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coachellaofficialguide.com> 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 May 16, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 5, 2018 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@coachellaofficialguide.com. Also on May 16, 2018, 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 June 7, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
Complainant owns and produces the famous Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival. It owns, inter alia the trade mark COACHELLA in the USA for organising and producing musical events and uses that mark in connection with its festival, first use in commerce recorded as 1999. It has a web site at <www.coachella.com>.
The Domain Name features the entire COACHELLA trade mark as the dominant portion of the domain name with the generic term ‘official guide’ added. The Domain Name plainly misappropriates sufficient textual components from the famous COACHELLA mark that an ordinary Internet user familiar with Complainant’s festival would upon seeing any of the Domain Name likely think that an affiliation exists between the site at the Domain Name and Complainant or its festival. The inclusion of ‘official’ in the Domain Name compounds this.
The addition of a gTLD to the subject domain name is irrelevant to the confusing similarity analysis.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent is not known by Complainant’s COACHELLA mark. Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use its COACHELLA mark. When a domain name is used to impersonate a complainant such use is not a bona fide offering of goods and services. Respondent uses the Domain Names to redirect users to Respondent’s commercial web site which prominently the registered COACHELLA mark in a similar stylized font, image of Complainant’s festival and links to Complainants’ site with the apparent aims of collecting customer’s e mail addresses. The use is commercial so it cannot be non-commercial fair use.
The registration and commercial use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to a web site impersonating a complainant evidences bad faith registration and use under the Policy under 4 (b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Domain Name was registered with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COACHELLA marks as evidenced by Respondent’s explicit use of the COACHELLA marks in the Domain Name, the use of a font similar to Complainant’s stylized font and the links to Complainant’s web site and is bad faith under 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. Registration of a confusingly similar domain name that is obviously connected with a particular trade mark owner by someone with no connection with the trade mark owner suggests bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns and produces the famous Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival. It owns, inter alia the trade mark COACHELLA in the USA for organising and producing musical events and uses that mark in connection with its festival, first use in commerce recorded as 1999. It has a web site at <www.coachella.com>.
The Domain Name registered in 2018 has been pointed to a site using Complainant’s COACHELLA mark in a similar stylized font to Complainant’s logo and collects information from consumers.
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 (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.”).
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of Complainant's COACHELLA mark (which is registered, inter alia in USA for products and services relating to entertainment and has been used since 1999), the generic term ‘official guide’ and the gTLD .com. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underling mark held by the complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term ‘official guide’ to Complainant's mark increases likelihood of confusion and does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.
The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the COACHELLA mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest Respondent is, in fact. commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The web site to which the Domain Name redirects purports to offer information in competition with those of Complainant using Complainant’s name, and similar logo and trade dress. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.)
As such the Panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by Complainant as it offers information services under a Domain Name containing Complainant’s COACHELLA mark, a similar logo and trade dress. The use of Complainant's word mark, logo and trade dress shows that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its business at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel holds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).
In addition phishing or collecting information from unwitting customers has also been held to be bad faith registration and use in itself.
As such, the Panelist believes that Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coachellaofficialguide.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: June 8, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page