Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Christopher Cattern / rvrbowner.com
Claim Number: FA1808001800641
Complainant is Coachella Music Festival, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Christopher Cattern / rvrbowner.com (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <coachellaartisthousing.com>, <coachellaeventestates.com>, <coachellavipestates.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 9, 2018; the Forum received payment on August 9, 2018.
On Aug 13, 2018, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coachellaartisthousing.com>, <coachellaeventestates.com>, <coachellavipestates.com> domain names are registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 August 13, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 4, 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@coachellaartisthousing.com, postmaster@coachellaeventestates.com, and postmaster@coachellavipestates.com. Also on August 13, 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 September 6, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <coachellaartisthousing.com>, <coachellaeventestates.com>, <coachellavipestates.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <coachellaartisthousing.com>, <coachellaeventestates.com>, <coachellavipestates.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <coachellaartisthousing.com>, <coachellaeventestates.com>, <coachellavipestates.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Coachella Music Festival, LLC, owns and produces the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival. Complainant has registered the COACHELLA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,196,119, registered Jan. 9, 2007).
Respondent registered the disputed domain names on December 18, 2017, and uses them to host parked pages featuring pay-per-click advertisements.
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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the COACHELLA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Here, Complainant provides copies of its registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,196,119, registered Jan. 9, 2007).
Respondent’s <coachellaartisthousing.com>, <coachellaeventestates.com>, and <coachellavipestates.com> domain names all use Complainant’s COACHELLA mark and simply add generic terms and the “.com” gTLD. The addition of generic terms is not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as “the addition of the generic term ‘real’ to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.”). The addition of a gTLD is irrelevant under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Colin LeMahieu v. NANO DARK, FA 1786065 (Forum June 9, 2018) (finding that the addition of a generic term and the generic top-level domain “.com” insufficient to differentiate the <nanodark.com> domain name from the NANO mark). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <coachellaartisthousing.com>, <coachellaeventestates.com>, and <coachellavipestates.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <coachellaartisthousing.com>, <coachellaeventestates.com>, and <coachellavipestates.com> domain names and is not commonly known by the domain names. Complainant states that Respondent is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s COACHELLA mark. The WHOIS information of record identifies the Respondent as “Christopher Cattern / rvrbowner.com.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug, 3, 2017) (“Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent fails to use the <coachellaartisthousing.com>, <coachellaeventestates.com>, and <coachellavipestates.com> domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant provides screenshots of the webpages resolving form the disputed domain names that feature Complainant’s mark in connection with links to related and unrelated goods and services. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant claims that Respondent registered and uses the <coachellaartisthousing.com>, <coachellaeventestates.com>, and <coachellavipestates.com> domain names in bad faith because Respondent uses them to attract Internet users for commercial gain. Complainant argues Respondent does this by using domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark to host a parked page with pay-per-click advertising links. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iv). See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (holding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to display links to various third-party websites demonstrated bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 16, 2007) (concluding that Internet users would likely be confused as to the source or sponsorship of the <blackstonewine.com> domain name with the complainant because the respondent was redirecting Internet users to a website with links unrelated to the complainant and likely receiving click-through fees in the process).
The Panel finds that 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 <coachellaartisthousing.com>, <coachellaeventestates.com>, <coachellavipestates.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 10, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page