Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Paul Mattis
Claim Number: FA1512001651013
Complainant is Coachella Music Festival, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Paul Mattis (“Respondent”), Michigan, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <coachella2017.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 4, 2015; the Forum received payment on December 4, 2015.
On December 7, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coachella2017.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 December 7, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 28, 2015 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@coachella2017.com. Also on December 7, 2015, 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 December 31, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant owns the COACHELLA through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,196,119, registered January 9, 2007). Complainant uses the mark in connection with its annual music festival. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the COACHELLA mark, because it merely adds the number “2017” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been licensed or authorized to use the COACHELLA mark. Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has failed to make any active use of the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent must have had actual and/or constructive knowledge when registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. However, Respondent did respond informally via an email exchange with the dispute resolution provider. In its email Respondent asks the Forum to “[t]ell me how I transfer this domain name to you so we can resolve this quickly.”
Complainant has rights in the COACHELLA mark evidenced by its registration of such mark, and variants thereof, with the USPTO.
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA trademark.
Respondent unequivocally consents to transferring the at-issue domain name to Complainant.
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 formal response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 15(a) of the Rules thus permits a panel to grant a complainant’s requested relief without deference to Policy ¶¶4(a)ii or 4(a)iii when a respondent consents to such relief. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also, Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”)
In the instant case there is a clear indication that Respondent agrees to transfer the at-issue domain name to Respondent. Respondent asks the Forum to “tell [him] how [he can] transfer this domain name …so we can resolve this quickly.” Therefore, the Panel follows its rationale set out in Homer TLC, Inc. v. Jacek Woloszuk, FA613637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 17, 2015), as well as in other similarly reasoned decisions where the respondent likewise agreed to transfer the at-issue domain name to the complainant.
As more fully discussed in the cases referenced above, as a necessary prerequisite to Complainant obtaining the requested relief, even where Respondent consents to such relief, Complainant must nevertheless demonstrate that it has rights in a mark that is confusingly similar or identical to the at-issue domain name. Here, Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for the COACHELLA trademark evidences its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO).
Additionally, the at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s entire COACHELLA trademark followed by the number “2017” with the top-level domain name “.com” appended thereto. However, the differences between the at-issue <coachella2017.com> domain name and Complainant’s COACHELLA trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Respondent’s <coachella2017.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA trademark See Omnitel Pronto Italia S.p.A. v. Bella, D2000-1641 (WIPO Mar. 12, 2001) (finding that the contested <omnitel2000.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the OMNITEL trademark); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
In light of the foregoing, Respondent’s express consent to transfer the confusingly similar at-issue domain name in response to the Complaint compels the Panel to order that Respondent’s <coachella2017.com> domain name be transferred to Complainant. Furthermore, the Panel finds no reason to provide further analysis regarding Paragraph 4(a)(ii) or 4(a)(iii).
Having concluded that Respondent impliedly consents to Complainant’s request that the domain name be transferred to Complainant, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coachella2017.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: January 3, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page