DECISION

 

GoDigital Media Group, LLC v. Universal Music Operations Ltd / Domain Administrator

Claim Number: FA2508002172460

 

PARTIES

Complainant is GoDigital Media Group, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Dorothy R. Auth of Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Universal Music Operations Ltd / Domain Administrator ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <godigitalmusic.com>, registered with SafeNames Ltd.

 

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 19, 2025. Forum received payment on August 19, 2025.

 

On August 20, 2025, SafeNames Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <godigitalmusic.com> domain name is registered with SafeNames Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. SafeNames Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the SafeNames Ltd. 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 20, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 9, 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@godigitalmusic.com. Also on August 20, 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 September 10, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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, GoDigital Media Group, LLC, is a California limited liability company with a national presence in the United States, having employees and offices in multiple locations. Complainant is the owner of several service mark registrations for the mark GODIGITAL in the United States, covering a wide variety of services, all of which are generally related to music distribution and music production.

 

Complainant has been using the service mark GODIGITAL and variations containing GODIGITAL in connection with music production, music distribution and licensing of software for management of intellectual property, since as least as early as January 2006 in the United States. Complainant has expended substantial time, money, and effort to promote and advertise its services under its GODIGITAL marks. As a result, the Complainant is the owner of substantial goodwill and consumer recognition in the GODIGITAL marks.

 

Complainant owns the domain name <godigitalmg.com>, registered on November 30, 2007, and the domain name <godigital.com>, registered on December 24, 1997. Currently, the <godigital.com> domain name forwards to Complainant's <godigitalmg.com> domain name. Complainant provides information about its music distribution, music production and related entertainment services on its website at <godigitalmg.com>.

 

The <godigitalmusic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered GODIGITAL marks.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Respondent does not use the <godigitalmusic.com> domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, because the domain name does not resolve to any website content. There is no relationship between the parties giving rise to any license, permission, or other right by which Respondent could own or use any domain name incorporating Complainant's marks. There is no evidence that Respondent has used or is making any demonstrable preparations to use the <godigitalmusic.com> domain name. Rather, the evidence shows that Respondent has been and continues to be passively holding the domain name. 

 

It can be assumed that Respondent, whose identification and contact information for <godigitalmusic.com> is privacy protected, is not commonly known by the name GODIGITAL.

 

The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent used a privacy protection service to register the <godigitalmusic.com> domain name, which concealed the identity of the true registrant. There is no bona fide reason to conceal the identity of an actor in the commercial marketplace.

 

Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its GODIGITAL marks prior to registering <godigitalmusic.com>, which is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The domain name was registered one year after Complainant filed and registered its first GODIGITAL mark in U.S., namely U.S. Registration No. 4,217,111, suggesting that Respondent was knowingly trying to trade upon the goodwill of the Complainant.

 

Respondent registered and is using the <godigitalmusic.com> domain name, which incorporates and is confusingly similar to the GODIGITAL mark, but Respondent has no legitimate connection with that mark or the Complainant. The registration and use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of opportunistic bad faith.

 

Respondent registered the domain name to prevent Complainant from reflecting its service marks in the domain name. Complainant filed, registered and began using the GODIGITAL marks in United States before the Respondent's registration of <godigitalmusic.com>. Specifically, Respondent's registration of the domain name one year after Complainant filed and registered its first GODIGITAL mark suggests that Respondent may have been aware of Complainant's rights. The addition of the word "music" in the domain name further suggests that there was knowledge of Complainant's music distribution services and Complainant's GODIGITAL marks. Actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name shows bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Respondent has failed to use the domain name since its registration, which is evidence of bad faith. All of the submitted screenshots of the domain name from 2013-2018 and 2025 do not show any substantive content other than the name of the Registrar or the message, "This site can't be reached." As a result, the <godigitalmusic.com> domain name can only be taken as intending to stop Complainant from reflecting its GODIGITAL service marks, and thus, the domain name must be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith, with no good faith use possible.

 

In sum, Complainant has proven that: (1) the <godigitalmusic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to registered trademarks owned by Complainant; (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <godigitalmusic.com> domain name as Respondent has been passively holding the domain name for fifteen (15) years; and (3) the <godigitalmusic.com> domain name was registered in bad faith by Respondent and subsequently never used to display any substantive content.

 

Finally, Complainant notes that the Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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

Complainant has shown that it has rights in three United States GODIGITAL service marks, namely:

 

(i)                      USPTO Reg. No. 6,386,988, registered on June 15, 2021 upon application filed on September 28, 2020, claiming first use in commerce in 2006, for "Delivery of digital music by electronic transmission" in International Class 38; "Music production services; Television show production; Distribution of television programming to cable television systems; Entertainment media production services for motion pictures, television and Internet; Post-production editing services in the field of music, videos and film; Production of sound and music video recordings; Providing online music, not downloadable" in International Class 41; and for "Copyright management; Licensing of software for management of intellectual property" in International Class 45.

 

(ii)                      USPTO Reg. No. 6,225,324, registered on December 22, 2020 upon application filed on November 17, 2019, claiming first use in commerce in 2006, for "Licensing of intellectual property rights" in International Class 45; and

 

(iii)                      USPTO Reg. No. 4,217,111, registered on October 2, 2012 upon application filed on February 3, 2012, claiming first use in commerce in 2005, for "Distribution of motion picture films; Distribution of television programming to cable television systems; Distribution of television programs for others; Film distribution; Production and distribution of independent motion pictures; Production and distribution of monoscopic and stereoscopic, electronic, digital video and film; Production and distribution of motion pictures; Production and distribution of television shows and movies; Providing voice overs for tapes, records and other recorded media for entertainment and education purposes" in International Class 41. 

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <godigitalmusic.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's GODIGITAL  marks, only differing by the addition of the word "music", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's marks. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In light of the Panel's findings below, it is unnecessary to consider this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), namely:

 

(i)        circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii)        you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii)        you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The <godigitalmusic.com> domain name was registered by Respondent on January 24, 2013, some 4 months after the registration of Complainant's earliest United States registered GODIGITAL mark. It has never resolved to an active website. The Panel accepts that Complainant has a national presence in the United States and has been using the service mark GODIGITAL and variations containing GODIGITAL in connection with music production, music distribution and licensing of software for management of intellectual property since as least as early as January 2006 in the United States. However, there is no evidence from which it may be concluded that it is more likely than not that Respondent, Universal Music Operations Ltd, located in London, United Kingdom, was aware of Complainant or its GODIGITAL mark when registering the <godigitalmusic.com> domain name in 2013. Hence the Panel finds that none of the circumstances set out in Policy ¶ 4(b)(i), (ii) or (iii) of the Policy is established. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) is inapplicable in this case because Respondent has not actively used the domain name since its registration. 

 

The name of Respondent, Universal Music Operations Ltd, indicates that it is in the music business. The words "go digital" are inherently descriptive. In the absence of evidence that Respondent was more likely than not to have been aware of Complainant's mark, these factors indicate why Respondent likely chose to register the <godigitalmusic.com> domain name and that Respondent did so in good faith.

 

Complainant submits that Respondent's passive holding of the domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Even assuming that, since the domain name was registered, Respondent became aware of Complainant and its mark (as to which there is no evidence) and has been holding the domain name passively in bad faith, the Panel is not persuaded that such circumstances establish registration in bad faith.

 

As to Complainant's submission that Respondent acted in bad faith by using a privacy protection service to hide its WHOIS registration data, as noted in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.6, "there are recognized legitimate uses of privacy and proxy registration services", and the circumstances in which such services are used can however impact a panel's assessment of bad faith. As is widely known, the use of a privacy or proxy registration service is a common practice adopted by many legitimate businesses and individuals to protect against spam, identity theft, and other security risks. Absent additional evidence showing that such privacy was employed specifically to conceal wrongful conduct or to prevent a trademark owner from identifying the registrant, the mere use of a privacy service does not in itself support a finding of bad faith.

 

Complainant has failed to establish this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

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

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: September 11, 2025