Chipotleguildeducation.com

The timeline behind chipotleguildeducation.com

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

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

DECISION Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and CMG Pepper, LLC and Guild Education, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico Claim Number: FA2402002084633 PARTIES Complainant is Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and CMG Pepper, LLC and Guild Education, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Emily J. Cooper of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico ("Respondent"), Panama. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <chipotleguildeducation.com>, 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. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 20, 2024; Forum received payment on February 20, 2024. On February 21, 2024, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <chipotleguildeducation.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 February 22, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 13, 2024 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@chipotleguildeducation.com. Also on February 22, 2024, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 14, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 Complainants requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to the first named Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS Complainants submit that paragraph 3(a) of the Rules provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate the administrative proceedings by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "the Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." Complainants submit that Supplemental Rule 1(e) has consistently been interpreted to allow multiple parties to proceed as one when they can show a sufficient link to each other. Here, the disputed domain name, <chipotleguildeducation.com> is a combination of the CHIPOTLE and GUILD marks. See Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003) (treating the two complaints as a single entity where both parties held rights in the trademarks contained within the disputed domain names). Moreover, multiple complainants may be considered a single entity under the Supplemental Rules when they demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership, or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity. Cochella Music Festival, LLC and Lollapalooza, LLC v. Agustin junior fletes Herrera/badfish company, FA 1842240 (Forum June 6, 2019). Here, Complainants have a partnership whereby the first and second Complainants offer employees tuition-free education through the thirn named Complainant's catalogue of courses as shown in Information about, and access to, the program can be found through the website located at the legitimate domain, <www.chipotle.guildeducation.com> which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. Thus, it is submitted that all Complainants should be considered a single entity capable of bringing a single complaint pursuant to Supplemental Rule 1(e). Having considered these submissions, and in particular noting that the first and second Complainants are in a parent and subsidiary corporation relationship, and are engaged with the third named Complainant to offer educational services to their employees as offered on the website at <www.chipotle.guildeducation.com>, this Panel decides and determines that the three Complainant's have a sufficient nexus whereby they can each claim to have rights to the domain name listed in the Complaint for the purposes of paragraph 3(a) of the Rules. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Requesting that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the first named Complainant, Complainants claim rights in the CHIPOTLE and GUILD marks established by their respective ownership of the trademark and service mark registrations described below and extensive use of the marks severally and in combination in the name of the website on which they offer educational courses as described above. It is submitted that the first and second named Complainants have one of the most well-known restaurant chains in the United States. In 2022, the first and second named Complainants reported more than $8.6 billion in revenue, employing more than 100,000 individuals world-wide. The third named Complainant, founded in 2015 provides management and administration services for employer- (and third party-) sponsored education and upskilling education benefits programs along with the technology to support those programs. It has grown to approximately 1,200 employees, which Complainants submit makes it a recognized leader in employee education, upskilling, and career mobility, It partners with many important businesses including the first and second Complainants, and has been named to the Time100 list of "Most Influential Companies". Complainants allege that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to both the CHIPOTLE and GUILD marks as it contains both marks in their entirety in combination with the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>. Complainants further argue that combining the legitimate marks of two different parties is insufficient to distinguish a domain name at issue from a complaints mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), particularly where, as here, the Parties behind those marks are affiliated in a legitimate manner. See Cochella Music Festival, LLC and Lollapalooza, LLC v. Agustin junior fletes Herrera/badfish company, FA 1842240 (Forum June 6, 2019) (finding the domain name <chellapalooza.com> to be confusingly similar to the Complainant's marks). Complainants add that the combination of Complainants' two marks in one domain name is even more likely to result in confusion. Given that Complainants maintain a legitimate website at the <www.chipotle.guildeducation.com>, which is only one character different from the disputed domain name Complainants argue that such minute modifications to Complainants' marks do not obviate the disputed domain name's confusing similarity. See, e.g., Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarai, FA 94454 (Forum May 30, 2000) (awarding <www.hewlitpackard.com>, a misspelling of HEWLETT-PACKARD, to the complainant). Finally, Complainants argue that the addition of the generic gTLD extension <.com> does not reduce the confusing similarity or distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainants' trademarks, as panels have long held the addition of a gTLD to be irrelevant for purposes of ascertaining confusing similarity. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Christian Gueyser, FA 1345920 (Forum Nov. 4, 2010) (finding the addition of the added gTLD does not affect the confusing similarity analysis). Complainant next alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that · Respondent is not, and has never been, associated or affiliated with any of Complainants; · none of Complainants have ever authorized Respondent to use the CHIPOTLE or GUILD marks or any variations thereof; · Respondent owns no legitimate trademark rights in the CHIPOTLE or GUILD marks, and any use of the marks by Respondent is unauthorized and in violation of Complainants' exclusive trademark rights; · such lack of consent supports a finding that Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, citing Nokia Corp. v. Nokiagirls.com, D2000-0102 (WIPO Apr. 18, 2000) (absence of a license permitting respondent to use Complainants' trademark constitutes evidence of respondent's illegitimate interests); · because Respondent is not affiliated with Complainants, any offering of services under a CHIPOTLE-formative or GUILD EDUCATION-formative trademark would be illegitimate and not bona fide, citing Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO Case D2000-0020 (no rights or legitimate interests where respondent did not apply for permission or license from Complainants to use the mark); · Respondent cannot have acquired any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because, as the WHOIS record shows, Respondent has chosen to remain hidden, citing WordPress Foundation v. Domain Backorder Domain-Catch.com / Net Solutions Holding LLC, FA 1552560 (Forum May 5, 2014) ("The beneficial owner remains hidden from public view and does not publicly associate itself with the disputed domain name. This means Respondent cannot acquire any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name."); · the first and second named Complainants first began using and developing rights in the CHIPOTLE marks in the United States at least as early as 2008, well before Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name; · Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant's registered trademark and service mark registrations; · Respondent registered the disputed domain name without the permission or consent of any of the Complainants; · a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which is exhibited in an annex to the Complainant, shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a so-called "link farm" that contains links to other sites that are competitive with the first and second named Complainant, namely sites related to "Mexican Food" or "Restaurant Franchising" opportunities, and/or which may contain downloads that are harmful to users' computers; · the disputed domain name is affiliated with a mail server seemingly intended by Respondent to generate an email address resembling that of Complainants; · Respondent's fraudulent use of the CHIPOTLE and GUILD marks in the disputed domain name indicates that Respondent was not only aware of Complainants' strong trademark rights, but also that Respondent attempted to prey upon consumer's trust in the Complainants in order to fraudulently collect personal identifying information and/or to direct users to competing sites, all for Respondent's own profit. Complainant next alleges the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that by registering the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to another's mark, strongly suggests that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainants and their partnership prior to registration of the disputed domain name. See Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. David Haddad / Warner Bros, FA 1736053 (Forum July 17, 2017) ("Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainants' mark because it registered a domain name nearly identical to Complainants' <warnerbroscareers.com> domain name (using the name of one of Complainants' executives as the registrant)."). Also, given the similarity between the disputed domain name and the legitimate domain <chipotle.guildeducation.com>, it is highly likely that Respondent selected the disputed domain name specifically to maximize the likelihood of confusion, in an attempt to deceive and confuse those that may receive emails originating from the mail server connected to the disputed domain name. See Sephora v. WhoisGuard, D2006-0845 (WIPO Sept. 4, 2006) (the panel found that given the widespread practice of typosquatting, the close similarity between the Complainant's SEPHORA Mark, and the disputed domain name <sefora.com>, was intentional and designed to confuse the public). Respondent's use and registration of the disputed domain name is clearly intended to capitalize on consumer confusion to Respondent's benefit and at significant harm to Complainants' the goodwill in their brands, and/or the victims of its intended phishing scam. All of this constitutes a bad faith use under the Policy. Equally troubling, the disputed domain appears to be connected to an email server in Mexico raises concerns that Respondent may be using the disputed domain name for the purposes of a phishing scheme. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainants are proprietors of a restaurant chain in the United States. Complainant CMG Pepper, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Complainant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and they own a portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations including the following examples: The first named Complainant owns: · United States registered trademark CHIPOTLE registration number 3,523,738, registered on the Principal Register on October 28, 2008 for services in international classes 29 and 30; · United States registered service mark CHIPOTLE registration number 3,698,498, registered on the Principal Register on October 20, 2009 for services in international class 43. The second named Complainant owns: · United States registered service mark CHIPOTLE registration number 2,344,423, registered on the Principal Register on Apr. 25, 2000 for services in international class 43. The third named Complainant Guild Education, Inc. is the owner of · United States registered trademark and service mark registration number 6,970,180, registered on the Principal Register on February 7, 2023 for goods and in international classes 9, 38, 42. The disputed domain name was registered on November 20, 2023 and resolves to a website with pay-per-click links. There is no information available about Respondent, except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this Complaint. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainants have provided uncontested evidence that they respectively have rights in the CHIPOTLE and GUILD marks established by their respective ownership of the trademark and service mark registrations described below and extensive use of the marks severally and also in combination in their partnership described above. The disputed domain name <chipotleguildeducation.com> consists of both of Complainants' CHIPOTLE and GUILD marks their entirety, in combination with generic word "education" together with the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>. Complainants' CHIPOTLE mark is the initial and dominant element in the disputed domain name, and the GUILD mark is also clearly recognized within the disputed domain name. The additional element "education" is generic and does not contribute any distinguishing character to the disputed domain name. The gTLD extension <.com> would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for an Internet domain name and therefore does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainants' marks. Furthermore there is a well established presumption that a domain name at issue is confusingly similar to a complainant's mark if, as in this case, it contains the mark in its entirety. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CHIPOTLE and GUILD marks in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests In its Complaint, Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered on November 20, 2023, long after the first named Complainant established rights in the CHIPOTLE mark, and subsequent to the registration of the GUILD mark by the third named Complainant. The disputed domain name is a combination of Complainants' CHIPOTLE and GUILD marks, and incorporates the principal elements of the third named Complainant's name. Furthermore the disputed domain name is a reference to the education partnership that Complainants have formed and promoted on the website at <www.chipotle.guildeducation.com>. On the balance of probabilities, the disputed domain name was therefore chosen and registered with knowledge of Complainants, their respective trademarks and names, and also importantly their website at <www.chipotle.guildeducation.com>. On the balance of probabilities therefore the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith to take predatory advantage of Complainants' reputations and goodwill in their marks and to create the impression of an association with their partnership proving educational services. The uncontested evidence is that the disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click web page from which Complainant is gaining commercial advantage. Therefore, this Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that such use of the disputed domain name is intended to attract, intercept and divert Internet traffic seeking Complainants' website at <www.chipotle.guildeducation.com>. Such use of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <chipotleguildeducation.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. _________________________________________________ James Bridgeman SC, Panelist Dated: March 16, 2024 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.