DECISION

 

Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Rachel Jackson / Jackson and Jackson LLP

Claim Number: FA2604002216388

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Coachella Music Festival, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Rachel Jackson / Jackson and Jackson LLP ("Respondent"), New York, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <cuntchella.com> and <cuntchella.org>, registered with DNC Holdings, 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.

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 16, 2026; Forum received payment on April 16, 2026.

 

On April 20, 2026, DNC Holdings, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cuntchella.com> and <cuntchella.org> domain names are registered with DNC Holdings, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. DNC Holdings, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNC Holdings, 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 April 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of May 18, 2026 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@cuntchella.com and postmaster@cuntchella.org. Also on April 27, 2026, 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 May 19, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: Multiple Domain Names

The Complaint relates to two domain names. Complainant did not address the issue, but Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." The WHOIS information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists the named Respondent as the registrant of both domain names and gives the same contact information for it for domain names. The Panel finds that both domain names are registered to the same person or entity or are under common control and will proceed as to both of them.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant owns and produces music and arts festivals. It has rights in the CHELLA mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Respondent's <cuntchella.com> and <cuntchella.org> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the CHELLA mark as they both fully incorporate the mark, merely adding the term "cunt" and a generic top-level domain (gTLD).

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. It has not been commonly known by the domain names, Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use its mark, and Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because they do not resolve to a website but are being passively held.

 

Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith. It registered them with actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark, it is making no active use of them, and it registered the confusingly similar domain names while itself having no connection with Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(2)       the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidence.

 

The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The CHELLA mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 5,075,233) on November 1, 2016 (USPTO registration certificate included in Complaint Exhibit H). Complainant's registration of the CHELLA mark with the USPTO establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Respondent's <cuntchella.com> and <cuntchella.org> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the CHELLA mark. They fully incorporate the mark, merely adding the generic term "cunt" and a gTLD. Complainant's mark is clearly recognizable within the domain names. The changes described above do not distinguish the domain names from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the CHELLA mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. If the respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant's prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant.

 

Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      The respondent has used or has 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; or

(ii)                      the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii)                      the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names because (i) it has not been commonly known by the domain names, Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use its mark, and (iii) Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because they do not resolve to a website but are being passively held  These allegations are addressed as follows:

 

The WHOIS information provided to Forum by the registrar lists the named Respondent as the registrant of the domain names. This name bears no resemblance to the domain names. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name.  The Panel finds that Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant states that it has not licensed Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel and is taken as true. Evidence that a respondent is not authorized to use a complainant's mark in a domain name, while not dispositive and while not specifically addressing any of the circumstances listed in Policy ¶ 4(c), supports a finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

 

Complaint Exhibit L contains screenshots of the landing pages to which the domain names point.  They are identical parking pages posted by the registrar which display the same "COMING SOON" message and advertise the registrar's services.  There is no evidence that Respondent is currently making any active use of or preparing to use the domain names but instead it is passively holding them. This is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, 'Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.' ' Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). 

 

On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove that the domain names have been registered or are being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:

 

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

(ii)                      the respondent has 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

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

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

 

The concept of bad faith as illustrated in the above four subparagraphs necessarily involves a subjective intent on the part of a respondent knowingly to trade upon the goodwill of the complainant. The respondent must intentionally have targeted the complainant's mark. Such subjective intent would in turn require that the respondent actually knew of the complainant or its rights in the relevant mark when it registered the domain name.  Constructive notice does not suffice.

 

In attempting to discern actual knowledge and a subjective bad faith intent, panels have looked at many different types of evidence, including but not limited to use of a domain name in direct competition with a trademark owner, impersonation, the parties operating in the same market segment, the parties being physically located in the same general geographic area, a pattern of bad faith conduct, actual prior association between or among the parties, the distinctive nature of the trademark, and the extent to which the trademark has been publicized and is known as a source indicator for the complainant. Unsupported allegations about a respondent's subjective intent are not evidence in this regard.

 

Determining actual knowledge of a mark in cases where the respondent defaults and is making no active use of the domain name can be challenging, but the evidence in this case demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain names, <cuntchella.com> in May 2022 and <cuntchella.org> in March 2026 (WHOIS printouts included in Complaint Exhibit A show registration dates). Complainant has been using the CHELLA mark at least since the 2016 first use date shown on the USPTO registration certificates for its mark. Complainant's principal music festival is the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival, but the Chella concert is a complementary event, held at approximately the same time of the year, dating back to at least as early as 2018 (Information about Chella festivals included in Complaint Exhibit G). The Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival is a very substantial event, attracting thousands of people each year and is well-known as such (News articles from New York Times, Rolling Stone and others included in Complaint Exhibit B). As so closely associated with the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival, the Chella events would almost certainly be equally well-known. Next, the CHELLA mark is not a generic or descriptive term—it is unique, a coined term that has no meaning apart from its association with Complainant. It would not likely be selected for inclusion in a domain name by anyone other than Complainant or an authorized affiliate except for the purpose of targeting this Complainant. The Panel is persuaded and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain names and selected them with the intent to target this Complainant.

 

As discussed in the rights and legitimate interests analysis, Respondent is presently making no active use of the domain names but is passively holding them. This does not fit precisely within any of the scenarios listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passively holding a confusingly similar domain name can be evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. 2000-0003 (".. . the concept of a domain name 'being used in bad faith' is not limited to positive action; inaction is within the concept."). The mere fact of passive holding does not automatically result in a finding of bad faith, but as discussed above, Respondent has been shown to have registered the domain names in bad faith.

 

Since the Policy requires a complainant to prove both registration and a continuing use in bad faith, the question next arises whether Respondent's passive holding of the domain names constitutes a continuing use in bad faith. The Policy requirement, "is being used in bad faith," can include passive use. Id. In this case, there is no evidence that Respondent is holding the domain names under any of the specific circumstances listed in Policy ¶ 4(b), so the question arises whether the facts present in this case support a finding of continuing bad faith use on some other basis.

 

The Panel has already concluded that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and the CHELLA mark when it registered the domain names, and that knowledge certainly continues. Also, Respondent is holding the domain names, which are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, without itself having any legitimate connection with Complainant. This in and of itself is evidence of bad faith. Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2000-1221 (finding that respondent's domain names to be "so obviously connected" to the complainant that "use or registration by anyone other than complainants suggests 'opportunistic bad faith'"). Finally, given the close similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark it is not possible to conceive of a plausible legitimate use of the domain names that would not infringe on Complainant's rights.  The evidence persuades the Panel that Respondent's passive holding of the domain names constitutes a continuing use in bad faith within the meaning and for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered or is using the domain names in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cuntchella.com> and <cuntchella.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

May 20, 2026