Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack v. Michael Grace
Claim Number: FA0801001139566
Complainant is Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (“Complainant”), represented by William
B. Canfield, of Williams & Jensen PLLC,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <marybonomack.com> and <marybonomack.org>, registered with Schlund+Partner Ag.
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.
Hon. Sir Ian Barker, QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
On February 14, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 5, 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 email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 22, 2008.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
The Complainant alleges that she has a common law service mark in her
own name “Mary Bono Mack.” She is a
sitting member of the House of Representatives of the
The Respondent has no rights to use her service mark and registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
The Respondent states that he has no interest in the disputed domain names. He no longer owns or controls them. He registered the disputed domain names on December 20, 2007 and used them to satirise the Complainant before deleting them on January 27, 2008. He agrees that they can be assigned to the Complainant.
The disputed domain names are to be transferred to the Complainant with the consent of the Respondent.
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.
However, where a respondent has admitted that he/she/it does not have
an interest in a disputed domain name and 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 disputed domain name. See
The same approach can be found in WIPO decisions such as Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. EZ-Port, D2000-0207 (WIPO May 8, 2000) and Slumberland France v. Chadia Acohuri, D2000-0195 (WIPO June 14, 2000).
Because of the Respondent’s acknowledgment and the above authorities, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <marybonomack.com> and <marybonomack.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Sir Ian Barker, QC,
Dated: March 12, 2008