Barnie's II, Inc. v. RareNames, WebReg
Claim Number: FA0707001031519
Complainant is Barnie's II, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Collin
B. Foulds, of Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett,
P.A., 500 IDS Center,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <barnies.com>, registered with Domaindiscover.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 11, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 18, 2007.
On July 21, 2007, Domaindiscover confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <barnies.com> domain name is registered with Domaindiscover and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domaindiscover has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domaindiscover 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 July 23, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 13, 2006 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 firstname.lastname@example.org by e-mail.
A timely electronic copy of the Response was received and determined to be complete on August 14, 2007. However, a hard copy of the Response was received after the deadline for response. Therefore, the Forum does not consider this Response to be in compliance with ICANN Rule 5(a).
On August 17, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Judge
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Respondent did not submit a timely hard copy of its Response in accordance with ICANN Rule 5. Its failure so to do is irrelevant in light of its stipulation to transfer to Complainant the disputed domain name (see infra).
Complainant charges that the disputed domain name falls within the Policy requirements and must be transferred to it. Although Respondent does not agree that it acted in bad faith by registering and using the disputed domain name, it has stipulated that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.
In the recent matter of Levantur,
Previous panels have held that a genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Rules. Where the Complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, then pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207, The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2005-1132 and Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Refining and Marketing Company v. RareNames WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2006-1336.
And, in American International Group, Inc. v. RareNames WebReg, FA 648253 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 6, 2006), the Panelist concluded:
When a respondent has agreed to comply with the complainant’s request, the panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and summarily order the transfer of the domain names. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. 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 (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.’); see also Mary Frances Accessories, Inc. v. Shoe Salon, FA 528458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 6, 2005); see also Dame Elizabeth Taylor, The Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company & Interplanet Productions Limited v. K. Myers, FA0508000547795 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 18, 2005).
This Panelist agrees with the reasoning and conclusions of the above matters, and, further, in the interest of arbitral economy for all involved, the disputed domain name will be transferred to Complainant.
By virtue of Respondent’s stipulation to transfer the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <barnies.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
JUDGE IRVING H. PERLUSS (RETIRED)
Dated: August 31, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page