Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Francisco Lizama
Claim Number: FA1811001814867
Complainant is Coachella Music Festival, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Francisco Lizama (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <coachella.app>, registered with Name.com, Inc..
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 November 4, 2018; the Forum received payment on November 4, 2018.
On November 5, 2018, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coachella.app> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, Inc. 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 November 5, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 26, 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@coachella.app. Also on November 5, 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 November 29, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the 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, operating under the name and mark COACHELLA, owns and produces the famous annual Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival.
Complainant holds a registration for the COACHELLA service mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 3,196,119, registered January 9, 2007, renewed as of March 23, 2016.
To connect the festival’s large and diverse community, Complainant maintains a website at coachella.com and also distributes a festival-related mobile application (“app”) for use on iPhone / iPad and Android devices.
Respondent registered the domain name <coachella.app> on May 8, 2018.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the COACHELLA mark in any manner.
Respondent’s use of the domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to host a commercial parking page populated by pay-per-click advertisements.
Respondent, for commercial gain, uses the domain name to attract Internet users to its resolving website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s COACHELLA mark as to the possibility of Complainant’s affiliation with the domain name and website.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is substantively identical and confusingly similar to a service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
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:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel will, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, decide this proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations, and, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, draw such inferences as it deems appropriate. The Panel is entitled to accept as true all reasonable allegations and inferences set out in the Complaint unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of a UDRP complaint to be deemed true). See also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO February 29, 2000): “In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”
Complainant has rights in the COACHELLA service mark sufficient for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by reason of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the USPTO. See, for example, Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum August 4, 2017):
Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.
Turning to the central question posed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <coachella.app> domain name is substantively identical, and therefore confusingly similar, to Complainant’s COACHELLA service mark. The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.app,” which relates to an aspect of Complainant’s business. This alteration of the mark, made in forming the domain name, does not save it from the realm of identity or confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy. See Tupelo Honey Hospitality Corporation v. King, Reggie, FA 1732247 (Forum July 19, 2017):
Addition of a gTLD is irrelevant where a mark has been fully incorporated into a domain name and the gTLD is the sole difference.
This is because every domain name requires a gTLD.
See also Kohler Co. v. Curley, FA 890812 (Forum March 5, 2007) (finding confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) where the <kohlerbaths.com> domain name contained a UDRP complainant’s entire mark, merely adding “the descriptive term ‘baths,’ which is an obvious allusion to complainant’s business.”).
Under Policy 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the <coachella.app> domain name, whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum August 18, 2006) (finding that a UDRP complainant must make a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under UDRP¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to that respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests). See also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum September 25, 2006):
Complainant must … 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, … the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.
Complainant has made out a sufficient prima facie showing under this head of the Policy. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint therefore permits us to infer that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO December 21, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond to a UDRP complaint allows a presumption that a complainant’s allegations are true unless they are clearly contradicted by the evidence). Nonetheless, we will examine the record before us, in light of the several considerations set out in Policy ¶ 4(c) (i)-(iii), to determine whether there is in it any basis for concluding that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name that are cognizable under the Policy.
We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <coachella.app> domain name, and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the COACHELLA mark in any manner. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as
“Francisco Lizama,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the ambit of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), that a respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name where the relevant WHOIS information identified its registrant only as “Fred Wallace.” See also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name where a UDRP complainant had not authorized that respondent to incorporate its mark in a domain name).
We next observe that Complainant asserts, without objection from Respondent, that Respondent employs the <coachella.app> domain name to resolve to a parked website that generates revenue for Respondent from the operation of click-through advertisements. This use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy. See, for example, TGI Friday’s of Minnesota, Inc. v. Tulip Company, FA 1691369 (Forum October 10, 2016):
Complainant claims that Respondent uses the domain for a parking page displaying … links that consumers are likely to associate with Complainant, but that simply redirect to additional advertisements and links that divert traffic to third-party websites not affiliated with Complainant…. The Panel here finds that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the proof requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
We are persuaded by the evidence that Respondent’s use of the challenged <coachella.app> domain name, which we have found to be substantively identical, and therefore confusingly similar, to Complainant’s COACHELLA service mark, is an attempt by Respondent to profit from the confusion thus caused among Internet users as to the possibility of Complainant’s association with the domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), this stands as proof of Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain name. See, for example, Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA1403001549084 (Forum April 23, 2014) (finding that the respondent registered and used a disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content other than sponsored advertisements and pay-per-click links).
We are also convinced by the evidence that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the COACHELLA mark when Respondent registered the disputed <coachella.app> domain name. This too demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith in registering the domain name. On the point, see Univision Comm. Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum August 16, 2007) (rejecting a respondent's contention that it did not register a disputed domain name in bad faith where a panel found that that respondent had knowledge of a UDRP complainant's rights in a mark at the time it registered a confusingly similar domain name).
The Panel thus finds that Complainant has met its obligations of proof under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be, and it is hereby, GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coachella.app> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: December 3, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page