National Arbitration Forum




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, Washington, D.C., USA.  Respondent is Michael Grace (“Respondent”), California, USA.




The domain names at issue are <> and <>, 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 electronically on January 22, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 30, 2008.


On January 24, 2008, Schlund+Partner Ag confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> and <> domain names are registered with Schlund+Partner Ag and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Schlund+Partner Ag has verified that Respondent is bound by the Schlund+Partner Ag 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 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 and by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 22, 2008.


On February 28, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Sir Ian Barker, QC as Panelist.




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





A. 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 United States of America.


The Respondent has no rights to use her service mark and registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.



B. Respondent

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 Tex. Med. Ctr. v. Spinder, FA 886496 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (foregoing the traditional Policy analysis where the respondent stipulated to the transfer of the disputed domain names to the complainant); see also Richard Simon Jocelyn Peter Adams v. Truth About Jos, FA 907564 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2007) (concluding that when a respondent stipulates to the transfer of the disputed domain name in its response or expresses a willingness to transfer the disputed domain name to the complainant, the Panel can forego an analysis of the Policy and order the immediate transfer of the dispute domain name); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Secure Whois Info. Serv., FA 910715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2007) (“In light of Respondent’s request that the Panel enter an order transferring the disputed domain name to Complainant without findings of fact on the elements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, and the lack of any objection thereto, the Panel declines to set forth or address the Parties’ contentions.”); see also Californian Academy of Sciences v. Texas International Property Associates, (FA 944494) (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007).


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 <> and <> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.






Hon. Sir Ian Barker, QC, Panelist
Dated: March 12, 2008