DECISION

 

Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. RUBEN SALAS / 3102761660 SRL

Claim Number: FA2312002075656

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Coachella Music Festival, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is RUBEN SALAS / 3102761660 SRL ("Respondent"), Costa Rica.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <coachellacr2024.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 18, 2023; Forum received payment on December 18, 2023.

 

On December 19, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <coachellacr2024.com> 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 December 26, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 16, 2024 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@coachellacr2024.com. Also on December 26, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On January 17, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Complainant, Coachella Music Festival, LLC, owns and produces the famous Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival.

 

Complainant has rights in the COACHELLA mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").

 

Respondent's <coachellacr2024.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it contains Complainant's entire COACHELLA trademark merely followed by the geographic term "cr" (Costa Rica), the year "2024" and the ".com" top-level.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <coachellacr2024.com> domain name. Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use any of its marks and Respondent has no legal relationship with Complainant that would allow it to use Complainant's trademarks. Respondent makes no use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to pass off as Complainant and to misdirect consumers to Respondent's online store that offers products competing with Complainant. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and is not making a noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish Complainant's trademarks.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <coachellacr2024.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the domain name and its referenced website. Respondent's at-issue domain name redirects internet traffic to a website displaying Complainant's trademark and stylized logo that offers items for-sale that directly compete since Complainant appears to sell tickets to events and entertainment activities. Respondent is attempting to pass off as Complainant. That Respondent's domain name is obviously connected with Complainant's trademark when there is no connection between Respondent and Complainant also evidences bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the COACHELLA mark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the COACHELLA trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website displaying Complainant trademark and logo that offers competing products for-sale.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO registrations for its COACHELLA mark. Such evidence is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) ("Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.").

 

Respondent's <coachellacr2024.com> domain name contains Complainant's COACHELLA trademark followed by the geographic term "cr" and the year "2024" with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <coachellacr2024.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's COACHELLA trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.");

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

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 <coachellacr2024.com> domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

The WHOIS information for <coachellacr2024.com> identifies the domain name's registrant as "RUBEN SALAS" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <coachellacr2024.com>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website offering products that compete with Complainant. Respondent's use of <coachellacr2024.com> to direct internet users to its commercial website is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to direct internet users to a website displaying Complainant's trademark and logo and offering products that appear to compete with Complainant. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name in this manner shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the <coachellacr2024.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) as such use creates a likelihood of confusion as to the domain name and website's sponsorship which Respondent's exploits for Respondent's commercial benefit. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).

 

Moreover, Respondent registered the <coachellacr2024.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in COACHELLA. Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's trademark and from Respondent's use the domain name to address a website displaying Complainant's trademark and stylized logo. Respondent's preregistration knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <coachellacr2024.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to the Policy. See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coachellacr2024.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: January 18, 2024