DECISION

 

GoDigital Media Group, LLC v. Kreshnik Lako

Claim Number: FA2508002171346

 

PARTIES

Complainant is GoDigital Media Group, LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Dorothy R. Auth of Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, United States. Respondent is Kreshnik Lako ("Respondent"), represented by Rezalt Kasaj of GO DIGITAL MEDIA, Albania.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <godigitalmusic.net>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 13, 2025; Forum received payment on August 13, 2025.

 

On August 14, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <godigitalmusic.net> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 3, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@godigitalmusic.net. Also on August 14, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 26, 2025.

 

On August 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's and Respondent's requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a California limited liability company with employees and offices in multiple locations in the United States. Complainant has used GODIGITAL and related marks in connection with music production, music distribution, and software licensing since at least as early as January 2006. Complainant owns the domain name <godigitalmg.com>, which was first registered in November 2007, and the domain name <godigital.com> domain name, which was first registered in December 1997. The <godigital.com> domain name currently forwards to a website at <godigitalmg.com> that provides information about Complainant's services. Complainant owns United States trademark registrations for GODIGITAL and related marks, including a registration for GODIGITAL for digital music delivery and production services that issued in 2021 with a stated first use date of January 2006.

 

The disputed domain name <godigitalmusic.net> was registered in August 2022. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "GO Digital Music – Music Publishing & Digital Distribution," with the footer "© Copyright 2025 GO Digital Music. Powered by GO Digital Media." The website promotes global music distribution services. A "Booking" page on the website contains placeholder text, non-working social media icons, and invalid and inconsistent contact and location information. (The screenshot of the "Booking" page provided by Complainant is dated August 7, 2025. It appears that the "Booking" page may have been deleted since that date, as the URL now yields a 404 "not found" error, and the link to it no longer appears in the header of Respondent's website.)

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent's website is designed to create the impression that it is Complainant's website or otherwise affiliated with Complainant, and that Respondent is thereby attempting to pass off as Complainant or an authorized affiliate. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no legitimate connection with Complainant, and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant points to the reference to "GO Digital Media" in the statement in the footer of Respondent's website as evidence of Respondent's knowledge of Complainant.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <godigitalmusic.net> is confusingly similar to its GODIGITAL mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent states that it operates as GO DIGITAL MUSIC in Albania, and that GO DIGITAL MEDIA is Respondent's Albanian service/agency provider. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <godigitalmusic.net> in August 2022 and put it to active use shortly thereafter, as demonstrated by a Wayback Machine (Internet Archive) screenshot from October 2022. Respondent states that the website content is focused on Albanian artists and links exclusively to Respondent's properties. Respondent also provides links to pages or profiles on YouTube, Spotify, Instagram, and Facebook, all of which appear to use "GO Digital Music" or "GO Digital Media" in connection with Respondent (in most instances, with Albanian-language content).

 

Respondent denies that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's GODIGITAL mark. Respondent states that "go," "digital," and "music" are ordinary dictionary terms that together describe the activity in which Respondent is engaged. Respondent argues that the inclusion of "music" in the domain name and the absence of any distinctive elements associated with Complainant (such as stylization or logos) render the domain name a descriptive phrase for digital music activity and not a reference to Complainant. Respondent also notes that in July 2025 Complainant filed an application with the United States Patent & Trademark Office to register GODIGITAL MUSIC on an intent-to-use basis, indicating that Complainant does not currently use "music" in combination with its GODIGITAL mark.

 

Respondent asserts rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and denies that it was registered in bad faith, based upon Respondent's having operated as GO DIGITAL MUSIC in Albania since 2022. Respondent asserts that it serves a different market than Complainant — specifically, Albanian artists and users — and is not a competitor of Complainant. Respondent notes that the Albanian Patent & Trademark Office registry shows no registrations by Complainant for GO DIGITAL MUSIC or GO DIGITAL MEDIA.

 

Respondent alleges that this proceeding represents an instance of reverse domain name hijacking, noting that the Complaint was prepared by the same counsel that filed Complainant's intent-to-use trademark application in July 2025, demonstrating actual knowledge that Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name predated any use of the term by Complainant.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. The Panel further finds that Complainant has not proved that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, nor that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <godigitalmusic.net> incorporates Complainant's registered GODIGITAL trademark, adding the generic term "music" (which relates to Complainant's business) and the ".net" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Rhino Entertainment Co. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Ryan Van Tuyl, Van Tuyl Music & Entertainment, L.L.C., D2021-0140 (WIPO Apr. 5, 2021) (finding <rhinomusic.net> confusingly similar to RHINO); Billboard IP Holdings, LLC v. Mukesh Bhati, FA 1813314 (Forum Nov. 20, 2018) (finding <billboardmusic.org> confusingly similar to BILLBOARD). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). However, the ultimate burden of proof on this issue (as on all of the elements required by the Policy) remains with Complainant. See Ulta Beauty, Inc. v. Doughouz Group / Doughouz Group Ltd, FA 2147925 (Forum Apr. 25, 2025); Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC v. Equitas Global, FA 2086400 (Forum Apr. 8, 2024); Vanity Shop of Grand Forks, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Vertical Axis Inc., FA 1595932 (Forum Jan. 20, 2015).

 

Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy provides that a Respondent's rights or legitimate interests are demonstrated by use or demonstrable preparations for use of the domain name or a corresponding name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to any notice of the dispute. Respondent has operated what appears to be a legitimate business under the name GO DIGITAL MUSIC in Albania for the past three years, focusing on Albanian artists and users, and the disputed domain name corresponds to the name of that business.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent has operated what appears to be a legitimate business under the name GO DIGITAL MUSIC in Albania for the past three years, focusing on Albanian artists and users, and the disputed domain name corresponds to the name of that business. The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proving that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Under Paragraph 1 of the Rules, "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" (RDNH) is defined as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name." Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that if "the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."

 

Complainant has used the GODIGITAL mark in connection with digital music delivery and production services for many years, long preceding Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel is not persuaded by Complainant's allegations regarding Respondent's intentions and activities, but considers them to be plausible. The Panel declines to find reverse domain name hijacking.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <godigitalmusic.net> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: August 27, 2025