National Arbitration Forum




Euromarket Designs, INC. d/b/a Crate & Barrel v. Jacob Rivard

Claim Number: FA0801001140126



Complainant is Euromarket Designs, INC. d/b/a Crate & Barrel (“Complainant”), represented by Niels Vig Lagerkvist Lehmann, of Valea AB, Lindholmspiren 5, Gothenburg 417 56, Sweden.  Respondent is Jacob Rivard (“Respondent”), 22192 Cedar St, Floriston, NV 96111, USA.




The domain name at issue is <>, registered with (I) Pvt. Ltd.



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.


R. Glen Ayers, Jr. served as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 25, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 28, 2008.


On January 26, 2008, (I) Pvt. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with (I) Pvt. Ltd. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. (I) Pvt. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the (I) Pvt. Ltd. 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 6, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 26, 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 by e-mail.


A Response was received electronically on February 14, 2008.  However, the Response was deemed deficient pursuant to ICANN Rule 5(b) because a hard copy of the Response was received untimely.


(1)  Given that the Response was actually received, and (2) that the Response states that Respondent has essentially waived any interest that she may have in the domain name, the Panelist has determined to consider the Response so as to be able to render a ruling consistent with both the Complaint and Response. 


On March 3, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed R. Glen Ayers, Jr. as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

The Complainant sets out evidence reflecting the elements of ICAN Policy at paragraphs 4(a)(i), (ii) and (iii). 


B. Respondent

The Response consists of the following statements:


“I told their lawyer I would give the domain to him, and he said nothing. Meanwhile I get 5 pounds of GARBAGE in the mail from them.  So if they want I can transfer it, but they are eager to waste money, paper, and time.  So I could care.  Regards, Yakov.”



Respondent has not disputed Complainant’s allegations.  Rather, Respondent has requested that the Panel transfer the <> domain name.  In a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain names, the Panelist may and does decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain names.  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 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.”). 



            The “Discussion” is omitted, as set out in the Findings. 



Having found that Respondent has requested a transfer, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant, as authorized by Respondent.






R. GLEN AYERS, JR., Panelist

dated:  March 17, 2008