DatingDirect.com Limited v.
Mikael Karlsson
Claim Number: FA0802001152958
PARTIES
Complainant is DatingDirect.com Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Adam
Taylor, of Adlex Solicitors,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <alldatingdirect.com>, registered
with Melbourne
It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.
PANEL
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.
Flip Petillion as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on February 21, 2008; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 25, 2008.
On February 21, 2008, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide
confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <alldatingdirect.com>
domain name is registered with Melbourne It,
Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that the Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne
It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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 28, 2008, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 19, 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@alldatingdirect.com by
e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 6, 2008.
On March 11, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Flip Petillion as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. The <alldatingdirect.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
2. Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interest in the <alldatingdirect.com> domain name.
3. Respondent has
registered and used the <alldatingdirect.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent asserts that the <alldatingdirect.com> domain
name does not belong to him and
never has. He argues that his credit card was used fraudulently to register the
<alldatingdirect.com> domain
name.
FINDINGS
Complainant runs an international online dating agency service for
singles seeking serious friendships and relationships.
Complainant has traded under the names DATING DIRECT and
DATINGDIRECT.COM since launching a website at <datingdirect.com> in 1999.
Complainant owns registered trademarks.
The Domain was
registered on September 17, 2007.
As of October 10, 2007,
the Domain resolved
to a website <fling.com> which offers adult relationship services.
The Complainant’s
solicitor sent a cease-and-desist communication by e-mail on October 10, 2007.
A further letter was sent to the physical address of Respondent on November
1, 2007.
Respondent replied
on November 9, 2007 stating that the domain had been fraudulently registered
using his address and information, and that he had informed the hosting company
to request immediate termination of the site.
On January 16, 2008,
the website was removed.
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.
Respondent claims he is the victim of identity theft, and thus alleges that he did not register and is not using the disputed domain name.
Respondent has consented to
judgment in favor of Complainant and authorized the immediate transfer of the
subject domain name. Respondent
furthermore does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the <alldatingdirect.com> domain name.
The Panel finds that in a
circumstance such as this, where Respondent has consented to the transfer of
the disputed domain name, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP
analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name. 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.”).
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <alldatingdirect.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Flip Petillion, Panelist
Dated: March 26, 2008
Click Here to return to
the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum