Westmore · UDRP DecisionCoachillintrading.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <coachillintrading.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered COACHILLIN mark, found no rights or legitimate interests because the Complainant’s prima facie case was unrebutted and the domain carried a risk of implied affiliation, and found bad-faith registration and use based on the unusual coined mark, inferred knowledge, redirection and pay-per-click use, an EUR 800 sale offer, privacy-service use, unanswered demand letters, and passive holding.
The timeline behind coachillintrading.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind coachillintrading.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how a domain combining a highly unusual coined mark with a descriptive word may support both confusing similarity and an inference of targeting. It also shows that passive holding does not preclude bad faith when accompanied by evidence such as redirection, apparent pay-per-click content, a sale offer, privacy-service use, unanswered communications, and respondent default.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Coachillin’ Holdings, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Wu Yu Case No. D2021-2998 1. The Parties The Complainant is Coachillin’ Holdings, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, United States. The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / Wu Yu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <coachillintrading.com> is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 10, 2021. On September 13, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 14, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 15, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 20, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 27, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 17, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 18, 2021. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on October 21, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant owns and operates an agri-business park and provides various real estate services, cultivation and agricultural design services as well as agricultural consulting and related services. The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks for the mark COACHILLIN, including the United States trademark registration No. 5888851 registered on October 22, 2019 in class 44 for consulting services in the field of agriculture. The disputed domain name was registered on March 19, 2021, and redirects users to various websites. The Complainant owns and uses the domain name <coachillin.com> to promote its services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends in essence that: - “Coachillin” is an unusual, coined term and that the Complainant has used the trademark COACHILLIN continuously since 2014 for its goods and services; - the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark COACHILLIN because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, whereas the descriptive term “trading” does nothing to obviate confusion; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because there is no affiliation or other relationship whatsoever between the Parties; - the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because (a) the Respondent almost certainly had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COACHILLIN mark at the time it registered the contested domain name; (b) the diversion of Complainant’s customers to a number of different websites, including the use of the domain name to create confusion with Complainant’s mark and thereby to attract internet users to Respondent’s web site for its own commercial gain; (c) Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant’s demand letters regarding the domain names; (d) the fact that the domain name is currently being offered for sale; and (e) the Respondent’s use of a privacy protection service in the registration of the domain name in order to conceal its identity. B. Respondent The Respondent has not submitted a response. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has shown that it holds, among others, the United States trademark registration No. 5888851 COACHILLIN registered on October 22, 2019, in class 44 for consulting services in the field of agriculture. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark COACHILLIN, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, whereas the addition of the word “trading” and of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends, credibly, that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, and that there is no relationship whatsoever between the Parties. The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 2.5.1). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has credibly shown that the trademark COACHILLIN is a highly unusual coined term, and that the Complainant is the only party with active trademark registrations or applications containing the term “Coachillin”. The Panel therefore infers that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s pre-existing trademark. The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website. However, the non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (see sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 ). The Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name redirects users to various websites. One of the websites contains what appear to be pay-per-click search terms and a statement that the disputed domain name is for sale through <Sedo.com>, and following the link leads to a page where the disputed domain name is offered for sale for a minimum price of EUR 800, which likely exceeds the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses for its registration. Moreover, the Complainant has shown that the Respondent used a privacy protection service in the registration of the disputed domain name in order to conceal its identity and failed to respond to the Complainant’s demand letters. Under these circumstances, the Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <coachillintrading.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Andrea Mondini Sole Panelist Date: October 29, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around coachillintrading.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.