Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. ANTOINE DANDRIDGE / SQUAREROOTZ MEDIA LLC
Claim Number: FA1904001839585
Complainant is Coachella Music Festival, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is ANTOINE DANDRIDGE / SQUAREROOTZ MEDIA LLC (“Respondent”), Tennessee, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <coachellatshirts.com>, registered with FastDomain 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 18, 2019; the Forum received payment on April 18, 2019.
On April 19, 2019, FastDomain Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coachellatshirts.com> domain name is registered with FastDomain Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. FastDomain Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the FastDomain 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 April 22, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 13, 2019 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@coachellatshirts.com. Also on April 22, 2019, 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 May 15, 2019, 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, the United States’ premier music and arts festival. Held annually at the 78-acre Empire Polo Club in the beautiful Southern California desert, the festival is one of the most critically acclaimed music festivals in the world. The first festival, held in October 1999, drew some 25,000 attendees into the California desert a few hours’ drive from Los Angeles, in Indio, California. Over the years, both the festival’s attendance and its prominence within the music industry have grown. 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 the festival have typically sold out in about an hour. It 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. The festival’s venue includes camping facilities for some 15,000 attendees (complete with a karaoke lounge and a general store), and an amazing selection of food and beverages from a wide range of restaurants. The festival also features an art exhibit which includes many pieces of art (including sculpture and so-called “interactive” art). Taken together, the music, the food, the art, and of course, the fellowship of other attendees, the festival is more than just a concert to attend—it truly is an experience. Complainant invested over $1,025,000 dollars in 2018 in media and related content to promote the festival. Complainant uses the COACHELLA mark to advertise the festival, and claims rights in the mark based upon registration in the United States in 2007.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar its COACHELLA mark, as it contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term “tshirts,” and the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not permitted or licensed to use Complainant’s COACHELLLA mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website where Respondent hosts pay-per-click advertisements for products unrelated to Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain name where it features pay-per-click advertisements. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COACHELLA mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark COACHELLA and uses it to market a music festival. The mark is famous.
Complainant’s rights in its marks date back to at least 2007.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2018.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The resolving website contains pay-per-click advertisements to products that are not related to those of Complainant.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “tshirts” and a gTLD to the mark. Additions of a generic and/or descriptive terms and a gTLD to a complainant’s mark does not negate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Thus, the Panel finds that the <coachellatshirts.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the COACHELLA mark in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 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.). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “ANTOINE DANDRIDGE / SQUAREROOTZ MEDIA LLC.” The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays pay-per-click advertisements to products that are not related to Complainant. Advertisements that divert traffic to third-party websites do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a noncommercial or fair use per Policies ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See TGI Friday’s of Minnesota, Inc. v. Tulip Company / Tulip Trading Company, FA 1691369 (Forum Oct. 10, 2016) (”Respondent uses the domain for a parking page displaying various 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.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Moreover, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s famous mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the resolving website which features click-through advertisements that redirect users to third-party websites. Using a confusingly similar domain name to commercially benefit via pay-per-click links can evince bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Google Inc. v. James Lucas / FireStudio / Jameschee / FIRESTUDIO / SEONG YONG, FA1502001605757 (Forum Apr. 7, 2015) (“This Panel agrees that Respondent’s inclusion of advertisements to likely reap click-through fees is an example of bad faith pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coachellatshirts.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: May 15, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page