National Arbitration Forum




InfoSpace, Inc. v. Montanya lLtd

Claim Number: FA0709001074890



Complainant is InfoSpace, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jan Riggs, 601 108th Ave NE, Suite 1200, Bellevue, WA 98004.  Respondent is Montanya lLtd (“Respondent”), represented by Paul Raynor Keating, of Renova, Ltd., Balmes 173 2º 2º, Barcelona 08006, Spain.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with LLC.



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.



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, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with LLC and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the 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 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.



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



A. Complainant


Complainant has U.S. trademark registrations for the mark DOGPILE, U.S. Registration Nos. 2,456,655 and 2,939,779 for computer programs and related services, with a date of first use of November 1996.  Complainant seeks recovery of the domain name <> registered to Montanya 1Ltd. (“Respondent”).  The Complainant refers to several prior panel decisions under the ICANN policy that have recognized Complainant’s status as a provider of services offered under the DOGPILE mark.  Complainant also has several domain names containing the DOGPILE mark.  Complainant contends that the <> registered by Respondent is substantially identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s DOGPILE mark and domain names.  Complainant contends that Respondent registered the <> domain name on July 14, 2007, twelve years after Complainant began using its DOGPILE mark and domain names, and that Respondent has never been known by or operated a business under the DOGPILE name and has no trademark or service rights in the name.  Complainant contends that Respondent’s selection and registration of a close variation, or a misspelling, of Complainant’s well known DOGPILE mark, and corresponding domain names was deliberate and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use.  Complainant requests that the domain name <> be transferred to Complainant.


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.



Complainant has established and Respondent does not contest that Complainant is the owner of the trademark registrations, and that the domain name at issue, <>, 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.



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 <> 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.”).



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 <> 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