American Hunter, Inc. v.
Demand Domains, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0804001177285
PARTIES
Complainant is American Hunter, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by J.
Wiley Horton, of Pennington Law Firm,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <prohoist.com>, registered with Enom
Corporate Inc.
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.
David S. Safran, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on April 10, 2008; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 14, 2008.
On April 10, 2008, Enom Corporate Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <prohoist.com> domain name is
registered with Enom Corporate Inc. and
that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom Corporate
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom Corporate Inc. 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 April 22, 2008, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of May 12, 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@prohoist.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 12, 2008.
On May 15, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed David S. Safran, as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
FINDINGS
Consent to Transfer the Subject Domain Name
Respondent maintains that it
“assumed registration” of the disputed domain name in good faith., and
Respondent states that, upon learning of Complainant’s rights in the PROHOISTS
mark, it contacted Complainant and offered to transfer the <prohoist.com> domain name.
Respondent maintains that it wishes to transfer the disputed domain name
to Complainant, and thus, has consented to judgment in favor of Complainant and
authorized the immediate transfer of the subject domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that, in a
circumstance such as this, where Respondent has consented to the transfer of
the disputed domain name, it 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
Since both parties have asked for transfer of
the domain name, it is Ordered that the <prohoist.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David S. Safran, Panelist
Dated: May 28, 2008
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page