Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Christopher Cattern
Claim Number: FA1904001836852
Complainant is Coachella Music Festival, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Christopher Cattern (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <coachellahq.com> and <coachellainfo.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 1, 2019; the Forum received payment on April 1, 2019.
On April 1, 2019, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coachellahq.com> and <coachellainfo.com> domain names are registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 8, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 29, 2019 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@coachellahq.com and postmaster@coachellainfo.com. Also on April 8, 2019, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 1, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Coachella Music Festival, LLC, owns and produces the famous Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival, the United States’ premier music and arts festival. Complainant uses the COACHELLA mark to advertise the festival, and claims rights in the mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,196,119, registered Jan. 9, 2007). See Compl. Ex. G. Respondent’s <coachellahq.com> and <coachellainfo.com> domain names are confusingly similar to the COACHELLA mark as each contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term “hq” or “info” along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <coachellahq.com> and <coachellainfo.com> domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s COACHELLA mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent doesn’t use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website where it displays pay-per-click advertisements. See Compl. Ex. H.
Respondent has registered and uses the <coachellahq.com> and <coachellainfo.com> domain names in bad faith as Respondent has a previous UDRP history with Complainant. See Compl. pg. 10. Additionally, Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the pay-per-click advertisements displayed on Respondent’s website. See Compl. Ex. H.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain names were created on May 18, 2018
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
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 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”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names, <coachellahq.com> and <coachellainfo.com>, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, COACHELLA. Complainant has adequately plead it rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain names by merely adding the generic words “info” and “hq” to an exact replica of Complainant’s trademark and adding the gTLD “.com”. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent apparently uses the disputed domain names to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website where it displays pay-per-click advertisements. See Compl. Ex. H.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names. Complainant argues that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use. A respondent’s prior UDRP history along with registration of multiple domain names incorporating variants of the complainant’s mark may reflect a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. zhangzongze / sweden / zhang jinxian / canada goose / harleydavidson / harley davidson, FA1410001587625 (Forum Dec. 10, 2014) (“The Panel agrees that the case relates to the same Respondent here, and Respondent’s history of bad faith suggests Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), especially given the presence of three domain names in this proceeding that incorporate the HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark.”). Here, Complainant contends that Respondent has previously registered multiple domain names which infringe on the rights of Complainant and its famous COACHELLA marks. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Christopher Cattern et al, FA800641 (Forum Sep. 10, 2018) (“The Panel found that Respondent violated the Policy and infringed Complainant’s rights when he registered coachellaartisthousing.com, coachellaeventestates.com, coachellavipestates.com, and used those domain names to host commercial parking pages.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent is a serial registrant of the COACHELLA mark and, as such, registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Furthermore, Complainant claims Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain names which feature click-through advertisements that redirect users to third-party websites. Using a confusingly similar domain name to commercially benefit via pay-per-click links is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Google Inc. v. James Lucas / FireStudio / Jameschee / FIRESTUDIO / SEONG YONG, FA1502001605757 (Forum Apr. 7, 2015) (“This Panel agrees that Respondent’s inclusion of advertisements to likely reap click-through fees is an example of bad faith pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain names’ resolving websites, both of which contain links such as “FARM STAR LIVING” or “RECIPES!” See Compl. Ex. H.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Finally, the Panel finds that, given the fame of Complainant’s mark and the totality of the circumstances, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark its rights thereto prior to registering the disputed domain names.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coachellahq.com> and <coachellainfo.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: May 2, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page