DECISION

 

Creative Artists Agency, LLC v. Nid Raja

Claim Number: FA2506002160552

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Creative Artists Agency, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Peter B. Bromaghim of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Nid Raja ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <caastellar.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with IONOS SE.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Douglas M. Isenberg and Flip Jan Claude Petillion as Panelists and Paddy Tam as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 12, 2025; Forum received payment on June 12, 2025.

 

On June 16, 2025, IONOS SE confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the Disputed Domain Name is registered with IONOS SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the Disputed Domain Name. IONOS SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the IONOS SE 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 June 17, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 7, 2025, 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@caastellar.com. Also on June 17, 2025, 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 July 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Douglas M. Isenberg and Flip Jan Claude Petillion as Panelists and Paddy Tam as Chair.

 

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 Disputed Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant, established in 1975, is an entertainment and sports agency that owns rights to the CAA, STELLAR, and CAA STELLAR brands. The Complainant has built brand recognition and goodwill through long-term use of these marks across various industries and regions. The CAA STELLAR mark and brand originated in September 2021 when the Complainant announced its acquisition of ICM. ICM included the Stellar Group, a football agency initially founded in 1992. The acquisition was completed in 2022.

 

The Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations and applications for these marks in several jurisdictions. The Complainant contends that, given the visibility of the CAA STELLAR brand and the timing of the domain registration, the Respondent was likely aware of its trademark rights at the time of registration. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks, incorporating them entirely without any meaningful distinction. The Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, has no connection to the Complainant, and is misleadingly suggesting an affiliation to benefit from the Complainant's reputation. Additionally, the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as evidenced by the Respondent's attempt to sell it to the Complainant for $50,000, well above any reasonable costs, constituting cybersquatting.

 

B. Respondent

The Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant's CAA and CAA STELLAR trademarks have been registered since 2010 and 2024, respectively.

 

The CAA STELLAR mark and brand were established in September 2021, following the merger of CAA and the Stellar Group under a unified brand.

 

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 30, 2021 and appears to resolve to a registrar parking page.

 

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 as 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. See Paragraph 4.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant claims rights in the CAA and CAA STELLAR trademarks through its trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, where the Respondent is domiciled. By virtue of its trademark registrations, the Complainant has demonstrated that it holds rights in the CAA and CAA STELLAR trademarks under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. See United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, FA 1036202 (Forum Aug. 30, 2007) ("Panels have long recognized Complainant's registration of a mark with a trademark authority is sufficient to confer rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)").

 

The Complainant further asserts that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the CAA STELLAR mark in its entirety, and that the addition of a generic top-level domain (gTLD) is not a distinguishing feature and does not affect the likelihood of confusion.

 

Upon conducting a side-by-side comparison, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's CAA STELLAR trademark (absent the space, which is not a permissible character in a domain name), and that the inclusion of the .com top-level domain (TLD) does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant's mark.

 

For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights and the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

To satisfy the second element under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must first establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The burden of proof then shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that it does possess such rights or legitimate interests. See 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.").

 

The Complainant reiterates that the Disputed Domain Name was registered decades after the Complainant and its predecessors began using the CAA and STELLAR marks, and three months after the Complainant publicly announced its acquisition.

The Complainant also confirms that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized as a vendor or licensee. The Complainant claims it has never granted the Respondent permission to use the CAA, STELLAR, or CAA STELLAR marks in the Disputed Domain Name, nor to use any of the Complainant's other intellectual property in any manner. This, on its own, is sufficient to support a finding that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a registrar parking page and appears to be passively held, with no indication of preparations for legitimate or bona fide use.

 

Having considered the overall circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. 

 

The burden of proof has shifted to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. However, the Respondent did not submit an official response within the required timeframe.

 

For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

To satisfy the third element under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must prove both the registration and use of the domain name are in bad faith. 

 

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name, which incorporates the combined CAA STELLAR mark, is sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use. Additionally, the use of a privacy service in the registration process supports a presumption of bad faith under the Policy.

 

The Complainant further states that the Respondent, through a domain broker, offered to sell the domain name to the Complainant for "upwards of $50,000" and was unwilling to lower the price. Based on available information, and without any explanation from Respondent, the $50,000 asking price significantly exceeds the Respondent's apparent out-of-pocket costs related to the Disputed Domain Name, which alone supports a finding of bad faith registration and use.

 

The Complaint also highlights that the Disputed Domain Name was registered three months after the Complainant publicly announced its acquisition of the STELLAR agency and brand. Registering the Disputed Domain Name shortly after this announcement, with the apparent intent to sell it to the Complainant, further indicates bad faith registration and use.

 

Having considered the overall circumstances and noting the absence of an official response from the Respondent, the Panel is of the view that it is unlikely to be a coincidence that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name containing both the CAA and STELLAR marks, especially given that the registration occurred three months after the public announcement of the merger. The registration of the Disputed Domain Name therefore constitutes bad faith. See Google LLC v. Colin Gao, FA2503002145287 (Forum April 10, 2025) ("Here, the record shows that the disputed domain name was registered after Complainant's announcement of Complainant's "Career Dreamer", and further to significant media attention in connection with the launch of Complainant's "Career Dreamer". Thus, even if Complainant's trademark rights did not predate the registration of the disputed domain name – which they do – the Panel would find bad faith registration."). See also Paragraph 3.8.2 of the WIPO Overview ("As an exception to the general proposition described above in 3.8.1, in certain limited circumstances where the facts of the case establish that the respondent's intent in registering the domain name was to unfairly capitalize on the complainant's nascent (typically as yet unregistered) trademark rights, panels have been prepared to find that the respondent has acted in bad faith. Such scenarios include registration of a domain name: (i) shortly before or after announcement of a corporate merger, (ii) further to the respondent's insider knowledge (e.g., a former employee), (iii) further to significant media attention (e.g., in connection with a product launch or prominent event), or (iv) following the complainant's filing of a trademark application.").

 

In addition, the Panel notes that the Respondent offered to sell the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant for an amount exceeding the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs, and that the Respondent's passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name further evidences its use in bad faith. See Fiverr International Ltd. v. Omar Jennane, FA2302002031583 (Forum March 22, 2023) ("Moreover, the Panel notes that disputed Domain Name has been pointed to a web page where the disputed Domain Name has been offered for sale at $50,000 USD, which far exceeds the documented out-of-pockets costs. In view of the circumstances of the case, particularly the identity of the disputed Domain Name with Complainant's FIVERR mark and Respondent's failure to demonstrate that he actually registered the disputed Domain Name to promote his application and not to target Complainant's FIVERR mark, the Panel finds that, on balance of probabilities, Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name with the primary intent to sell it to Complainant at an amount exceeding the out-of-pocket costs, according to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. "). See also Paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <caastellar.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Douglas M. Isenberg and Flip Jan Claude Petillion as Panelists and

Paddy Tam as Chair

Dated: 16 July 2025