About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

The California Milk Processor Board v. Edwin Caballero

Case No. D2011-0951

1. The Parties

Complainant is The California Milk Processor Board of San Clemente, California, United States of America, represented by Sipara, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Respondent is Edwin Caballero of Northridge, California, United States of America.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <1800gotmilk.net> and <1855gotmilk.com> are registered with Network Solutions, LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 3, 2011. On June 3, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Network Solutions, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 6, 2011, Network Solutions, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June142011 , . In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 4, 2011. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 5, 2011.

The Center appointed Sally M. Abel as the sole panelist in this matter on July 12, 2011. 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

Complainant is the proprietor of numerous GOT MILK? registered service marks and trademarks, in the United States (Registration No. 3730703), the European Community (Registration No. 8527178), and elsewhere. Complainant also owns the Internet domain names <gotmilk.com> and <gotmilk.net>. Since 1993, the GOT MILK? mark has been used by Complainant to promote the consumption of cow’s milk. Complainant’s first GOT MILK? television advertisement in 1993 was named one of the ten best advertisements of all time in a “www.usatoday.com” poll. In 2005, “www.taglineguru.com” named GOT MILK? as the most culturally influential tagline since the advent of broadcast television. Recent campaigns have featured high profile celebrities such as David Beckham, Beyoncé Knowles, and Britney Spears, in the United States and internationally. According to “www.sitetrail.com”, the estimated number of page views of Complainant’s “www.gotmilk.com” website exceeds 1.8 million annually.

Respondent registered the disputed domain names on February 20, 2011 without Complainant’s authorization. On April 12, 2011 Complainant’s counsel sent a letter to Respondent informing him of Complainant’s rights in the disputed domain names, and requesting the immediate deactivation and cancellation of the disputed domain names. On May 9, 2011, Respondent sent an email to Complainant’s counsel, offering to sell the disputed domain names for USD 35,000 and “a small commission of the Complainant’s sales”. Respondent’s justification for this price was so that Respondent could use the proceeds of the sale to “help people build homes for free in Peru.”.

Complainant states that Respondent at one point was using the disputed domain names to advertise Respondent’s haulage services. However, both disputed domain names currently resolve to generic Network Solutions, LLC landing pages.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain names <1800gotmilk.net> and <1855gotmilk.com> are confusingly similar, if not virtually identical to Complainant’s GOT MILK? marks, that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, and that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names, and use as set forth above, constitutes bad faith registration and use.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Respondent has defaulted. Paragraph 14 of the Rules provides that the Panel may draw such inferences from such a default as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel infers from Respondent’s silence that Complainant’s allegations are, in fact, correct.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain names <1800gotmilk.net> and <1855gotmilk.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOT MILK? trademarks. Respondent has simply added the two descriptive terms, “1800” and “1855”, which signify toll-free numbers in the United States, to Complainant’s marks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in either of the disputed domain names. There is no connection between the terms comprised in the disputed domain names with Respondent or with any of Respondent’s purported activities.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Respondent’s selection of the disputed domain names <1800gotmilk.net> and <1855gotmilk.com> and use of those domain names in association with Respondent’s haulage business, devoid of any relationship with or nexus to Complainant’s GOT MILK? brand, as well as Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant for more than Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs related to the disputed domain names, constitute bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names. Respondent registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling the disputed domain names to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of any out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(i)). Further, when using the disputed domain names in connection with his haulage business, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his site, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s GOT MILK? marks (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)).

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 names <1800gotmilk.net> and <1855gotmilk.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Sally M. Abel
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 27, 2011

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/