Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Kevin Faler
Claim Number: FA1704001726465
Complainant is Coachella Music Festival, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, U.S.A. Respondent is Kevin Faler (“Respondent”), California, U.S.A.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <coachella.co>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 11, 2017; the Forum received payment on April 11, 2017.
On April 12, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coachella.co> 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 April 12, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 8, 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@coachella.co. Also on April 12, 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.
Complaint sent several E-Mails to the Forum, see below. But it did not submit a formal response. Having received no formal response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 17, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it owns and produces the famous Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (“Coachella”), the USA’s premier music and arts festival. Held annually at the 78-acre Empire Polo Club in the beautiful Southern California desert, Coachella is one of the most critically acclaimed music festivals in the world. Attendance to the sold-out event aggregated over the multi-day festival is estimated at nearly 600,000 attendees. For the past several years, tickets to Coachella have typically sold out in about an hour. Coachella mixes some of the most groundbreaking artists from all genres of music along with a substantial selection of art installations from all over the world. The Festival attracts some of the world’s biggest mega-stars to perform. Complainant extensively promotes Coachella through a variety of media, including via the Internet, including and on numerous social media sites. Complainant registered the mark COACHELLA in the USA in 2007.
According to Complainant, the incorporation of the COACHELLA mark in its entirety into the disputed domain name is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark. The addition of the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) extension “.co” is without legal significance. Therefore, Respondent is using a domain name that is identical, or confusingly similar, to a mark in which Complainant has established a right.
Complainant alleges that it has not licensed Respondent to use the COACHELLA mark, nor is there any legal relationship between Complainant and Respondent that would authorize Respondent’s use of the mark. Respondent uses the subject domain name to misdirect consumers to Respondent’s website to generate revenue from commercial advertisement. Respondent is attempting to “pass off” as Complainant and therefore cannot be said to have a legitimate right or interest in the use of the domain name. Respondent is capitalizing on the fame of Complainant’s mark in order to generate traffic for Respondent’s website. The foregoing evinces no bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use at the subject domain name.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent is using the domain name in order to create confusion for the purpose of attracting misdirected consumers for commercial gain and these actions are sufficient to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent’s use of a domain name identical to the Complainant’s mark, as well as Respondent’s attempt to imitate the Complainant’s website through use of the COACHELLA mark and copyright-protected images from the Coachella festival, are evidence of an intent to misdirect for financial gain. Further, Respondent registered the subject domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evidenced by the fact that the domain name is identical to COACHELLA and by Respondent’s attempt to imitate the Coachella festival website. Respondent’s actual notice of Complainant’s rights supports a finding of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a formal Response in this proceeding. However, in an E-Mail of May 8, 2017, Respondent stated: “After careful review of this case with [our attorney], without admitting any fault I am willing to concede and transfer Coachella.co domain name to the Coachella Festival.”
For the reasons given below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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 the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case 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 Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., 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.”).
For the reasons given above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons given above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons given above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties,, it is Ordered that the <coachella.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: May 17, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page