Cocomelon.club

The timeline behind cocomelon.club

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Treasure Studio, Inc. and Moonbug Entertainment Limited v. Fang Fang Claim Number: FA2409002115124 PARTIES Complainant is Treasure Studio, Inc., United States, and Moonbug Entertainment Limited, United Kingdom ("Complainant"), represented by Robert White of Lexsynergy Limited, United Kingdom. Respondent is Fang Fang ("Respondent"), Indonesia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cocomelon.club>, registered with NameSilo, 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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 11, 2024; Forum received payment on September 11, 2024. On September 11, 2024, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <cocomelon.club> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 September 11, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 1, 2024 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@cocomelon.club. Also on September 11, 2024, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 October 2, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant Treasure Studio, Inc. was acquired by Moonbug Entertainment Limited in 2020; the Panel considers it appropriate to treat them as a single entity for purposes of this proceeding. Complainant provides children's educational and entertaining media content under the COCOMELON mark. Its COCOMELON YouTube channel includes digital content translated into 25 languages and has more than 180 million subscribers. Complainant also licenses the COCOMELON mark to licensees in more than 100 countries, offering apparel, toys, books, and other merchandise. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations for COCOMELON in the United States, Indonesia, and many other jurisdictions around the world, and also asserts common law rights in the mark. The disputed domain name <cocomelon.club> was registered in November 2023. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used to display an empty web page, and Respondent has not responded to Complainant's communication attempts. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <cocomelon.club> is identical to its COCOMELON mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Aug. 30, 2024), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <cocomelon.club> incorporates Complainant's registered COCOMELON trademark, adding only the ".club" top-level domain. The addition of a top-level domain is normally disregarded for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Treasure Studio, Inc. & Moonbug Entertainment Ltd. v. Trinh Quoc Chuong, FA 2022165 (Forum Dec. 28, 2022) (finding <cocomelon.mom> identical to COCOMELON); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Registration Private, FA 1846160 (Forum July 1, 2019) (finding <statefarm.club> identical or confusingly similar to STATE FARM). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, suggesting that Respondent lacks rights or interests in the name. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Registration Private, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark, and does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name. Respondent has not come forward with any explanation for the selection of the domain name or its intended use, nor otherwise participated in this proceeding. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant's mark and is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Registration Private, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cocomelon.club> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: October 2, 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.