Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Sree dulal Chandra pal
Claim Number: FA1801001768003
Complainant is Coachella Music Festival, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Sree dulal Chandra pal (“Respondent”), Bangladesh.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <2018-coachella.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the electronically on January 21, 2018; the Forum received payment on January 21, 2018.
On Jan 22, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <2018-coachella.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 January 22, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 12, 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@2018-coachella.com. Also on January 22, 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 February 13, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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
1. Complainant, Coachella Music Festival, LLC, owns and produces the famous Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival, the country’s premier music and arts festival. Complainant has rights in the COACHELLA mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,196,119, registered Jan. 9, 2007). Complainant also has common law rights in the mark dating back to its first use of the mark in commerce at least as early as October 1999.
2. Respondent’s <2018-coachella.com>[1] domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark, as the domain name contains the mark in its entirety, and merely adds the year “2018,” a hyphen, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
3. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <2018-coachella.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed 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 or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the name resolves to a commercial parking page populated by pay per click hyperlinks.
4. Respondent registered and is using the <2018-coachella.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to host a commercial parking page demonstrates its bad faith attempt to intentionally confuse and attract Internet users for commercial gain.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the COACHELLA mark. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the <2018-coachella.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and uses the domain name 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:
(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.”).
Complainant has rights in the COACHELLA mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 3,196,119, registered Jan. 9, 2007). See Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark). The Panel therefore holds that Complainant’s registration of the COACHELLA mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next argues Respondent’s <2018-coachella.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the COACHELLA mark, as the name contains the mark in its entirety, and merely adds the year “2018,” a hyphen, and the “.com” gTLD. Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from an mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Omnitel Pronto Italia S.p.A. v. Bella, D2000-1641 (WIPO Mar. 12, 2001) (finding that the contested <omnitel2000.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the OMNITEL trademark, despite the added year “2000” and “.com” gTLD); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy). The Panel therefore holds the <2018-coachella.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the COACHELLA mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the <2018-coachella.com> domain name. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c); see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <2018-coachella.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the COACHELLA mark in any way. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).
A privacy service was used by Respondent, but was lifted as a result of the commencement of this proceeding. Thus, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Sree dulal Chandra pal.” Additionally, the lack of evidence in the record to indicate the Respondent had been authorized to register the <2018-coachella.com> domain name further supports a finding that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is commonly known by the <2018-coachella.com> domain name.
Complainant further argues Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the <2018-coachella.com> domain name is demonstrated by its failure to use the name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant has provided evidence that the name resolves to a website which is being used to obtain click-through revenue by linking to third-party websites. Use of a domain name incorporating the trademark of another to host pay-per-click hyperlinks is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Materia, Inc. v. Michele Dinoia, FA1507001627209 (Forum Aug. 20, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to redirect users to a webpage with unrelated hyperlinks, that Respondent has no other rights to the domain name, and finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). The Panel therefore determines that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <2018-coachella.com> domain name.
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant also contends that Respondent’s bad faith is indicated by its use of the <2018-coachella.com> domain name to link to third party websites, some of which compete with Complainant’s business. Use of a domain name to resolve to a page of third-party links demonstrates a respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the domain name incorporates a trademark of another. See Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has registered and used the <2018-coachella.com> domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(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 <2018-coachella.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson Panelist
Dated: February 21, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page