InfoSpace, Inc. v. Montanya
lLtd
Claim Number: FA0709001074890
PARTIES
Complainant is InfoSpace, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jan
Riggs, 601 108th Ave NE, Suite 1200,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <dogpilec.com>, registered with Name.net LLC.
PANEL
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.
David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on September 6, 2007; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 7, 2007.
On September 11, 2007, Name.net LLC confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <dogpilec.com> domain name is
registered with Name.net LLC and that the
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.net LLC
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.net
LLC 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 September 20, 2007, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of October 10, 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@dogpilec.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 2, 2007.
On October 10, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant has
B. Respondent
In its response, Respondent states that it wishes to transfer the domain name to
Complainant and expressly stipulates to such transfer. Respondent does not dispute the allegations of the
Amended Complaint, and requests that the domain name be transferred to
Complainant without further findings of fact or liability.
FINDINGS
Complainant has established and Respondent does not
contest that Complainant is the owner of the trademark registrations, and that
the domain name at issue, <dogpilec.com>, is identical or confusingly
similar to Complainant’s
trademark. Since Respondent does not
contest the remaining allegations and consents to the transfer of the domain
name to Complainant, the Panel
foregoes an analysis of the issues and directs the transfer of the domain name
to Complainant.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a
complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance
with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems
applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each
of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be
cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is
being used in bad faith.
Respondent does not contest
Complainant’s allegations regarding the <dogpilec.com> domain name.
Rather, Respondent has requested and stipulated to the immediate
transfer of the subject domain name to Complainant. Where Respondent has
consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel may forego the
traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name. Citigroup
v. Pepin, FA0708001059354 (Nat. Arb. Forum September 10, 2007); Martin
Biochem, Inc. v. Benjamin Crosby, FA0706001008277 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31,
2007); See also 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.”).
DECISION
Both parties having consented to the transfer of the domain name, the
Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dogpilec.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
David P. Miranda, Panelist
Dated: October 24, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain
Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum