HMC Products, Inc. v.
Michael L Lotz
Claim Number: FA0712001124642
PARTIES
Complainant is HMC Products, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Angela
Dalton, of
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <casecutter.com>, registered with the Name It
Corporation d/b/a Nameservices.Net.
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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on
On
On January 18, 2008, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 7, 2008 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@casecutter.com by
e-mail.
A Response was received and determined to be deficient on
On
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <casecutter.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CASECUTTER mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.
3. Respondent registered and used the domain name at issue in bad faith.
B. Respondent filed a response which appears to consent to the transfer of the domain name at issue from the Respondent to the Complainant.
FINDINGS
Respondent apparently consents to transfer
the <casecutter.com> domain name to Complainant. Complainant contends, and Respondent does not
deny, that Respondent has attempted
to transfer the disputed domain name in the past to no avail. Complainant had
requested that Respondent execute a “change of ownership form,” which
Respondent did. However, because Respondent’s signature was
not notorized, Registrar was unable to
accept the form. All of Complainant’s
subsequent attempts to contact Respondent have
failed and the disputed domain name remains registered to Respondent. Respondent does
not deny any of the allegations in the Complaint.
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.
PRELIMINARY
ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER
In a circumstance such as this, in which Respondent has
not contested the transfer of the disputed
domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel will forego the
traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <casecutter.com> domain name. See
Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v.
Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum
DECISION
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <casecutter.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: February 28, 2008
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum