National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Dorothy Stanley

Claim Number: FA0706001013374

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Disney Enterprises, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by J. Andrew Coombs, of J. Andrew Coombs, A Professional Corporation, 450 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 600, Glendale, CA 91203-2349.  Respondent is Dorothy Stanley (“Respondent”), 2918 Paine Lane, Orlando, FL 32826.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <disneyvacationclubresale.com>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

 Linda M. Byrne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 20, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 21, 2007.

 

On June 20, 2007, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <disneyvacationclubresale.com> domain name is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On June 21, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 11, 2007 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@disneyvacationclubresale.com by e-mail.

 

A hard copy of the Response was received on July 11, 2007.  No electronic copy was received.  Therefore, the Response is not considered to be in compliance with ICANN Rule 5(a). 

 

On July 17, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Linda M. Byrne as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant submits that it is the owner of hundreds of registrations for the DISNEY trademark in countries around the world and holds numerous domain name registrations incorporating the DISNEY mark.  Complainant contends that the DISNEY trademark is “so widely accepted in the mind of the general public that the trademark has become unquestionably famous and distinctive and has acquired secondary meaning and distinctiveness throughout the United States and around the world.”  Complainant also contends that Respondent’s domain name <disneyvacationclubresale.com > is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest with respect to the domain name; and that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. 

 

B. Respondent

Respondent submits that she is a timeshare broker and is in the business of reselling Disney Vacation Club Points under the direction of Disney Vacation Development in Celebration, Florida.  Respondent states, “We never thought we were misrepresenting that we were Disney Vacation Development or Disney Enterprises but that we sold Disney Vacation Club resale’s from individuals with ownership interests in Disney Vacation Club.”   Respondent contends that she has discontinued use of the <disneyvacationclubresale.com> domain name as of June 23, 2007.  In an e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum dated July 13, 2007, Respondent states, “Tell us how to transfer the name and we will do so…”.    

 

FINDINGS

 

Complainant owns hundreds of registrations for the DISNEY trademark in the United States and around the world.  In addition, Complainant holds numerous domain name registrations incorporating the DISNEY mark, including the domain name disneyvacationclub.com. 

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <disneyvacationclubresale.com> on December 28, 2004.

 

Respondent’s <disneyvacationclubresale.com> site currently states the website is “under construction.” 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Deficient Response

The Panel has decided to consider the Response in making its Decision despite the fact that no electronic copy of the Response was received.  The hard copy of the Response was received by the National Arbitration Forum on July 11, 2007, the due date for the Response.  In Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Secure Whois Information Service, FA 910715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2007), the response was submitted in hard copy only.  The panel deemed any procedural deficiencies inconsequential, and chose to consider the response.  In Clear!Blue Holdings, L.L.C. v. NaviSite, Inc., FA 888071 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2007), the panel chose to consider a deficient response because it provided useful information that aided the panel.

 

Respondent Agrees to Transfer

The Panel notes that Respondent has chosen not to challenge any of Complainant’s assertions, but rather to agree to the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.  Therefore, the Panel will forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant.  See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Arb. 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 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).

 

 

DECISION

Having established and determined that Respondent does not contest Complainant’s remedy and agrees to transfer the domain name to Complainant, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <disneyvacationclubresale.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Linda M. Byrne, Panelist
Dated: July 30, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum