WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION California Milk Processor Board v. Jeff Pendleton, Harvest Properties, LLC Case No. D2018-1858 1. The Parties

The Complainant is California Milk Processor Board of San Clemente, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Knox, Lemmon Anapolsky, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Jeff Pendleton, Harvest Properties, LLC of Denham Springs, Louisiana, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 14, 2018. On August 15, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 16, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 20, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 9, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 10, 2018.

The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky, Michelle Brownlee and Gregory N. Albright as panelists in this matter on October 1, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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

The following factual information is derived from the Complaint and supporting materials submitted by the Complainant:

The Complainant is an instrumentality of the State of California, United States, formed in 1993 to promote the consumption of milk through marketing, advertising, promotion, and public relations, and it is the owner of the trademark GOT MILK?. The Complainant owns numerous GOT MILK? service marks and trademarks registrations and applications in the United States and throughout the world, the earliest of which dates back to July 4, 1995 (United States Reg. No. 1,903,870). The GOT MILK? trademark is used for various goods and services such as key holders, baby bottles, picture frames, coffee cups, clothing, golf tees, etc., and the trademark has been promoted extensively through media, featured by many celebrities such as David Beckham, Beyoncé Knowles, and Britney Spears.

The disputed domain name was registered with GoD on May 9, 2018. The website associated with the disputed domain name contains numerous pay-per-click ads. Also, according to the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent owns almost 400 domain names which incorporate famous trademarks or misspellings of famous trademarks such as , , , etc. On May 18, 2018, the Complainant, through its attorney, sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent. On June 25, 2018, the Respondent emailed the Complainant’s attorney proposing the sale of the disputed domain name for USD 5,000. When the offer was rejected by the Complainant, the Respondent made another offer to sell the disputed domain name for USD 2,500, which was also rejected by the Complainant. On July 19, 2018, the Complainant sent a second cease and desist letter to the Respondent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, asserting that i) the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety save for a question mark, ii) the omission of the question mark does not alleviate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark, and iii) the addition of the generic word “yet” does not avoid the confusing similarity.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name because i) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, ii) the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and iii) the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Lastly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because i) it attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the pay-pe