Solstice Marketing
Corporation v.
Claim Number: FA0710001104317
PARTIES
Complainant is Solstice Marketing Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel
E. Branson, of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <solsticeeyewear.com>, registered
with Compana,
LLC.
PANEL
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.
Professor Darryl C. Wilson as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on October 30, 2007; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 31, 2007.
On October 30, 2007, Compana, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <solsticeeyewear.com> domain name is
registered with Compana, LLC and that the
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Compana, LLC
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Compana,
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 November 14, 2007, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of December 4, 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@solsticeeyewear.com by
e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 4, 2007.
On December 13, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Professor Darryl C. Wilson as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it owns the registered service mark
SOLSTICE and uses the mark SOLSTICE SUNGLASS BOUTIQUE on the website <solsticestores.com>. Complaint further contends that Respondent
has registered an identical or confusingly similar domain name identified as <solsticeeyewear.com>. Complaint asserts that Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain and has registered, and is
using, the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent does not contest the Complainant’s assertions and states
that “Respondent agrees to the relief requested by the Complainant and will
upon order of the Panel, do so.” The
Respondent asserts that it is not admitting that it has violated the elements
of the ICANN UDRP policy but instead characterizes its actions as an offer of
“unilateral consent to transfer.”
FINDINGS
Respondent has consented to judgment in favor
of Complainant and agreed to the immediate transfer of the subject domain name
upon order of the Panel. Where the
Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the
analysis of the UDRP elements is unnecessary.
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
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.”).
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.
See FINDINGS section.
See FINDINGS section.
See FINDINGS section.
DECISION
The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <solsticeeyewear.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Professor Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: December 27, 2007