UDRP Coachella wins a cybersquatting dispute that was really a trademark dispute

[News]

The Coachella music festival has won a dispute it filed under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution (UDRP), resulting in the transfer of the domains teachella.net and teachella.org. Festival organizers certainly could have a trademark dispute with the owner of the domains, but the FORUM panelist who heard this case erred in ordering the domains transferred to Coachella.

Read More.

 

[yaamgont]

The Coachella music festival has won a dispute it filed under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution (UDRP), resulting in the transfer of the domains teachella.net and teachella.org. Festival organizers certainly could have a trademark dispute with the owner of the domains, but the FORUM panelist who heard this case erred in ordering the domains transferred to Coachella.

Read More.

Interesting case. I just looked up the meaning of "ella", which is the key difference between "coachella" and "teachella" as in "coach" and "teach" respectively. The complainants would have had a case if "ella" had no meaning and just constituted an attachment to "coachella" per their unique creation. It turns out "ella" means "godess", is a female's name, and in some instances, means "she" or "her". If my sources are accurate, then clearly, the alledged squatters have a valid basis for using the name and therefore did not squat on the said digital property. Just my thoughts on this. I am no patent, copyright or trademark attorney and this opinion as a basis for any action in that regard should be cleared with such. Thanks for sharing.

 

[draco]

Promoting themselves as "the Coachella of teacher celebrations" was rather stupid of them, IMHO. But you would think Coachella would have the decency to reach out to them and ask them to stop promoting the NPO that way, before filing a UDRP.

 

[yaamgont]

Promoting themselves as "the Coachella of teacher celebrations" was rather stupid of them, IMHO. But you would think Coachella would have the decency to reach out to them and ask them to stop promoting the NPO that way, before filing a UDRP.

If that's the case, then it is clearly illegal - impersonation at the individual level. I would not fault a man for calling his child Thames, when the other one has already been named James.