Coachella.band, Coachella.video

The timeline behind coachella.band

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. London McDaniel Claim Number: FA1901001824798 PARTIES Complainant is Coachella Music Festival, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is London McDaniel (“Respondent”), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <coachella.band> and <coachella.video>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 13, 2019; the Forum received payment on January 13, 2019. On January 14, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coachella.band> and <coachella.video> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 January 14, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 4, 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@coachella.band, postmaster@coachella.video. Also on January 14, 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 February 8 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant made the following contentions. Complainant, Coachella Music Festival, LLC, uses their mark COACHELLA in connection with a famous music festival. Complainant has rights in the COACHELLA mark based on 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 <coachella.band> and <coachella.video> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark, as the domain names are identical to the mark and merely add generic top-level domains (“gTLD”) “.band” and “.video.” Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <coachella.band> or <coachella.video> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the COACHELLA mark in any manner Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain names. Respondent registered and is using the <coachella.band> and <coachella.video> domain names in bad faith. Respondent’s bad faith is indicated by their passive holding of the domain names. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. Complainant is a United States company that owns and produces its famous Coachella music festival. 2. Complainant has established its trademark rights in the COACHELLA mark based on its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,196,119, registered Jan. 9, 2007). 3. Respondent registered the disputed domain names on April 4, 2018. 4. Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain names constituting bad faith registration and use. DISCUSSION 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 names have been registered and are 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.”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has rights in the COACHELLA mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 3,196,119, registered Jan. 9, 2007). See Compl. Ex. G. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel therefore holds that Complainant’s registration of the COACHELLA mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark. Complainant argues that Respondent’s <coachella.band> and <coachella.video> domain names are confusingly similar to the COACHELLA mark, as the domain names are identical to the mark and merely add generic top-level domains (“gTLD”) “.band” and “.video.” Addition of a gTLD is not sufficient to overcome a confusingly similar analysis per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, FA 1738263 (Forum July 27, 2017) (“When a respondent’s domain name incorporates a mark in its entirety and merely adds a generic top-level domain (gTLD), “.com”, then the Panel may find that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark.”); see also Avaya Inc. v. Robert Bird, FA 1603045 (Forum Mar. 12, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the AVAYA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as the added terms are descriptive of and related to Complainant’s offerings, and in the cases of <avaya.help>, and <avayaphone.systems>, the added gTLD adds to the confusion.”). Respondent added “.band” and “.video” to Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain names. See Compl. Ex. A. The Panel agrees therefore that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COACHELLA mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations: (a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s COACHELLA trademark and used them in its domain names, adding merely the generic top-level domains (“gTLD”) “.band” and “.video”; (b) Respondent registered the disputed domain names on April 4, 2018; (c) Respondent fails to make an active use of and is passively holding the disputed domain names; (d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant; (e) Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <coachella.band> or <coachella.video> domain names, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the COACHELLA mark in any way. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization from complainant to use its mark may be evidence that respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information of record identifies the owner of the disputed domain names as “London McDaniel” and no information on record indicated Respondent was authorized to register a domain name with Complainant’s mark. The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <coachella.band> or <coachella.video> domain names; (f) Complainant further argues that Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the <coachella.band> and <coachella.video> domain names is demonstrated by its failure to use the names to make a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate or noncommercial or fair use. Complainant instead contends that the name resolves to an inactive website. Passive holding is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant has provided screenshots of the web page associated with the disputed domain names to show the website’s inactivity. See Compl. Ex. H. The Panel therefore determines that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <coachella.band> or <coachella.video> domain names per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish. Registration and Use in Bad Faith It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons. First, while Complainant does not make any cognizable arguments that fall within the articulated provisions of Policy ¶ 4(b), the Panel notes that these provisions are meant to be merely illustrative of bad faith, and that Respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by ancillary allegations considered under the totality of the circumstances. See Digi Int’l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith). Complainant argues that Respondent’s bad faith is indicated by its lack of use of the <coachella.band> and <coachella.video> domain names. Inactive holding of a disputed domain name may indicate bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dr. Keenan Cofield, FA 1799574 (Forum Sep. 10, 2018) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where “the domain name initially resolved to a web page with a “website coming soon” message, and now resolves to an error page with no content.”). Complainant has provided screenshots of the web page associated with the disputed domain names to show the website’s inactivity. See Compl. Ex. H. The Panel therefore determines that Respondent registered the <coachella.band> and <coachella.video> domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Secondly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names using the COACHELLA mark and in view of the passive holding that Respondent has engaged in since registering the disputed domain names, Respondent registered and used them in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coachella.band> and <coachella.video> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC Panelist Dated: February 9, 2019 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.