WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Monster Energy Company v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC Case No. D2018-2817 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Monster Energy Company of Corona, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, 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 December 10, 2018. On December 11, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 11, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 13, 2018, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 19, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 December 21, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 10, 2019. On January 7 and January 9, 2019, the Center received two email communications from an individual purporting to be the Respondent.

The Center appointed William R. Towns as the sole panelist in this matter on January 23, 2019. 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

The Complainant, headquartered in Corona, California, sells energy drinks, beverages, and nutritional supplements under its MONSTER ENERGY mark. The Complainant has used the MONSTER ENERGY mark in the United States since as early as 2002, internationally since 2003, and is the owner numerous of trademark registrations for its MONSTER ENERGY marks issued in the United States and in numerous other countries. The earliest of the Complainant’s MONSTER ENERGY marks was registered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on January 17, 2006, and February 7, 2006.1

The Complainant’s MONSTER ENERGY mark has been recognized in UDRP panel decisions as a distinctive indicator of source and a well-known mark.2 The Complainant has provided evidence of the extensive promotion and marketing of the MONSTER ENERGY mark. Sales of MONSTER ENERGY drinks since 2002 have generated more than USD 23 billion in gross sales.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 11, 2018, according to the Registrar’s WhoIs records. The WhoIs-listed registrant is a privacy or proxy registration service affiliated with the Registrar. As noted above, however, the Center received two communications on January 7 and January 9, 2019, from an individual purporting to have registered the disputed domain name. In the first of these communications the individual disclosed making an offer to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant. In a subsequent email received by the Center the individual professed to be a “huge fan of Monster,” stating he had hoped to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant in exchange for a tour of the Complainant’s headquarters. It appears from the record that the disputed domain name has been passively held since its registration by the Respondent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its MONSTER ENERGY mark. The Complainant asserts that MONSTER ENERGY is a well-known mark and cites decisions in which UDRP panels have found domain names consisting of “monsterenergy” to be identical to the Complainant’s MONSTER ENERGY mark, when disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). The Complainant maintains that Internet consumers encountering the disputed domain name are likely to expect it to be associated with a website offering the Complainant’s products.

The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted to use the Complainant’s MONSTER ENERGY mark. The Complainant observes that the Respondent has neither used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor made a legitimate noncommercial or other fair use of the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has passively held the disputed domain name since its registration.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after the Complainant’s MONSTER ENERGY mark, first registered in 2006, had become well-known in the United States and internationally. Given the Complainant’s numerous registrations of the MONSTER ENERGY mark and its extensive international reputation, the Complainant argues there is no plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant and the well-known MONSTER ENERGY mark. In view of the foregoing, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name evinces the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use. The Complainant further observes that marks with a high degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness are entitled to a greater scope of protection. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. As noted earlier, however, the Center received two communications from an individual claiming to have registered the disputed domain name. In one communication the individual disclosed that he had offered to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant and had invited negotiations, which the Complainant declined. In another email directed to the Center following the commencement of proceedings, the individual professed to be a “huge fan of Monster.” The individual denied bad faith when registering the disputed domain name, stating he had hoped to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant in exchange for a tour of the Complainant’s headquarters. 6. Preliminary Issue: Respondent Identity

Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines the respondent as “the holder of a domain name registration against which a complaint is initiated.” In many instances, however, the WhoIs-listed registrant is a “privacy” or “proxy” registration service. Paragraph 4(b) of the Rules provides that updates to the respondent’s data, including a request by a privacy or proxy provider to reveal the underlying customer data, must be made before the two (2) business day period concludes or before the Registrar verifies the information requested and confirms the Lock to the UDRP Provider, whichever occurs first. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.4 .

It has become routine for privacy or proxy registration services to disclose underlying customer data upon commencement of a UDRP proceeding. However, in this instance Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC did not disclose to the Registrar any underlying customer data. In the absence of any such disclosure and without verification by the Registrar of the underlying customer data, the Panel concludes that the Respondent, Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, is the holder of the disputed domain name made the subject of this Complaint, correctly identified as the WhoIs-listed registrant, and properly named as the Respondent in the Complaint. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.4.5.

In terms of underlying respondent identity, UDRP panels have treated privacy and proxy serv