Score Media and Gaming, Inc. v. Debra Charlery
Claim Number: FA2010001915696
Complainant is Score Media and Gaming, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jamie Nafziger of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Debra Charlery (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <the-score.com>, registered with Webnames.ca Inc..
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.
Adam Taylor as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 2, 2020; the Forum received payment on October 2, 2020.
On October 5, 2020, Webnames.ca Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <the-score.com> domain name is registered with Webnames.ca Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Webnames.ca Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Webnames.ca Inc. 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 October 8, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 28, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@the-score.com. Also on October 8, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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.
A Response was received after the deadline to file a response, determined to be complete on October 30, 2020.
On November 4, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Adam Taylor as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A Response was received on October 30, 2020, after the deadline to file a response. Thus the Response is not in compliance with ICANN Rule 5. The Panel, at its discretion, may choose whether to accept and consider this Response. See Sears Brands, LLC v. Airhart, FA 1350469 (Forum Dec. 2, 2010) (electing to not accept and not consider the response as the response was not in compliance with ICANN Rule 5); see also Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. LaFond, FA 1362225 (Forum Jan. 7, 2011) (deciding that while the response was deficient, “the Panel has nonetheless decided to consider the deficient Response.”).
Given that the Response was only two days late, and bearing in mind the content of the Response (explained below), in the circumstances of this case the Panel has decided to accept and consider the Response.
Respondent consents to transfer the <the-score.com> domain name to Complainant. However, after the initiation of this proceeding, Webnames.ca Inc. placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain name while this proceeding is still pending. As a result, the Panel may find that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <the-score.com> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
In the circumstances of this case, and noting that the Complainant has not expressed a preference for a substantive decision following the filing of the Response, the Panel considers that it is appropriate and expedient to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain name on the basis of the parties’ mutual request.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <the-score.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Adam Taylor, Panelist
Dated: November 18, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page