Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The registered domain name <coachella.nyc> fully incorporates the word mark Coachella for which the Complainant holds valid registrations, and specifically the rights to which is attested by U.S. Reg. No. 3,196,119, and that is in current use, the status and confirmation of use in which are supported by relevant evidences submitted together with the Complaint. It is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus new gTLD .nyx does not preclude confusion of the conflicting domains with the Complainant�s marks. Quite to the contrary, the new gTLD .nyx referring to the �New York City� may be interpreted as the geographical indication, mapping the location of the Complainant or associated affiliate, event, or any other person or entity in the New York City endorsed by the Complainant. Respectively, the Examiner finds that the contested domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant�s word marks under URS 1.2.6.1. (i).

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Examiner determines that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Coachella name and that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainant�s marks in a domain name or otherwise. When accessing the websites under the disputed domain name <coachella.nyc>, the user was initially redirected to sensoriumfestival.com domain name. The Sensorium festival is a competitive music and arts festival operated by Respondent. Complainant submitted the respective evidences supporting this. Respondent did not provide any evidences in support of his allegations of the lack of use. Such use of the domain name does not constitute fair use. Redirection from the domain name <coachella.nyc> to a criticism website cannot be used a leverage as the Examiner finds that as it is primary a pretext for cybersquatting or commercial activity. See Monty & Pat Roberts Inc. v.J.Bartell (WIPO Case D2000-0300) ("Respondent?s claim to use of Complainant?s mark for legitimate news dissemination purposes is a serious one, since the Panel is greatly concerned to assure that rights of the public to freely communicate their views on the Internet are protected and preserved. However, in balancing the rights of Complainant in its mark, and the rights of Respondent to freely express its views about Complainant?s services, the Panel concludes that Respondent has impermissibly taken advantage of Complainant?s commercial interests in the mark.�) Respondent?s claim to a "freedom of expression" interest in establishing the websites is contradicted by his own words. A demand for payment from the critical sites is fundamentally inconsistent with the right of free expression. This would not be characterized as "free speech" activity. Yet the more, Respondent shifted to the redirection to the criticism site after Complainant approached him with the letter. Thus, before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent did not use, or did not made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The bad faith exists where the respondent, by using the domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant�s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. By visiting the site, customers will most likely expect to reach the COACHELLA website, and expect that the website is operated by someone who has any ties with or relation to the Complainant which is strongly present onto the international market and is known worldwide. The Respondent who has never been granted the right to use the " COACHELLA" mark and who does not have any affiliation ties with the Complainant is using the confusion in the minds of consumers over the use of the "CIALIS" mark to divert users to the own website to increase the traffic to the domain name and to advertise its own event, thus taking undue advantage of the Complainant�s mark and goodwill associated with the mark. Likelihood of confusion is not diminished by the possibility that the user will discover, upon arriving at Respondent�s website, that the website it reached is not the website it was seeking. Thus, this is the clear cut case of the bad faith use of the. Thus, the Examiner finds the contested domain name misleading. Yet the more, the Respondent�s offer to purchase the domain name �as well as another property I own, coachel.la for a fair price implies requesting anything other than out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name is viewed by the Examiner as suspect and as a demand for compensation in excess of out-of-pocket-costs. That facts support finding of bad faith registration under URS 1.2.6.3.(d).

After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

1. coachella.nyc