Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Robiul Islam / Robiul Sojib / LifeHostBD
Claim Number: FA1806001791808
Complainant is Coachella Music Festival, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Robiul Islam / Robiul Sojib / LifeHostBD (“Respondent”), Bangladesh.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <coachellalive.org> and <coachella-live.com>, registered with Crazy Domains FZ-LLC; Tucows Domains 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.
David A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 14, 2018; the Forum received payment on June 14, 2018.
On June 15, 2018, Crazy Domains FZ-LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coachellalive.org> domain name is registered with Crazy Domains FZ-LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. On June 18, 2018, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coachella-live.com>, domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Crazy Domains FZ-LLC and Tucows Domains Inc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the respective registration agreements 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 June 25, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 16, 2018 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@coachellalive.org and postmaster@coachella-live.com. Also on June 25, 2018, 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 July 17, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David. A. Einhorn 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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registering by the same domain name holder.” Complainant contends that Respondent used identical street address and email addresses when it registered the disputed domain names. Further, Complainant points out that Respondent registered the disputed domain names, which are nearly identical to one another, on the same day. The Panel finds that the evidence supports a finding that the domain names are owned or controlled by a single respondent.
A. Respondent
Complainant owns and produces the famous “Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival,” the country’s premier music and arts festival. Complainant has rights in the COACHELLA mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,196,119, registered Jan. 9, 2007). Respondent’s <coachellalive.org> and <coachella-live.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark as Respondent adds the generic term “live,” a hyphen, and a “.org” or “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to the mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <coachellalive.org> and <coachella-live.com> domain names. Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s COACHELLA mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites.
Respondent registered and uses the <coachellalive.org> and <coachella-live.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response. The Panel notes that the <coachellalive.org> and <coachella-live.com> domain names were registered on April 10, 2018.
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 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 (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.”).
Complainant claims to have rights in the COACHELLA mark through its trademark registrations with the USPTO. Registering a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”). Complainant provides a copy of its USPTO registration for the COACHELLA mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,196,119, registered Jan. 9, 2007). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated its rights in the COACHELLA mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Next, Complainant contends Respondent’s <coachellalive.org> and <coachella-live.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark. Specifically, Complainant claims Respondent merely adds a generic term, a hyphen, and a gTLD to the mark. Additions of generic terms, hyphens, or a gTLD do not mitigate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy). Complainant argues that Respondent merely adds the term “live,” a hyphen, and a “.org” or “.com” gTLD to the COACHELLA mark. Therefore, the Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the COACHELLA mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant asserts Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <coachellalive.org> and <coachella-live.com> domain names. Specifically, Complainant argues Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s COACHELLA mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). The WHOIS of record identifies Respondent as “Robiul Islam” and ”Robiul Sojib / LifeHostBD.” Therefore, the Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii).
Additionally, Complainant claims Respondent is not using the <coachellalive.org> and <coachella-live.com> domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain names currently resolve to inactive websites. Failure to make active use of a disputed domain name may not constitute as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain names’ resolving websites which is a blank webpage with the error message, “This site can’t be reached.” Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
Complainant has therefore satisfied Policy ¶4 (a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant alleges Respondent registered and uses the <coachellalive.org> and <coachella-live.com> domain names in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant claims that Respondent inactively holds the domain names, as Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names for any purpose. Inactively holding a confusingly similar domain name can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain names’ resolving website, which is blank with only an error message. The Panel agrees that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. The inclusion of Complainant’s entire mark in Respondent’s domain names further supports the bad faith registration finding.
Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coachellalive.org> and <coachella-live.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David A. Einhorn, Panelist
Dated: July 27, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page