PC Connection, Inc. v.
Claim Number: FA0806001204915
PARTIES
Complainant is PC Connection, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James
F. Laboe, of Orr & Reno, P.A.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <maccconnection.com>, registered with
Compana,
LLC.
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.
Clive
Elliott as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on June 13, 2008; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 17, 2008.
On June 16, 2008, Compana, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <maccconnection.com> domain name is
registered with Compana, LLC and that the
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Compana, LLC
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Compana,
LLC 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 June 20, 2008, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of July 10, 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@maccconnection.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 10, 2008.
On July 17 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Clive Elliott as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant is engaged in the sales, marketing and service of computer
and networking hardware, software, peripherals and service primarily through
telephone and electronic commerce in the
Complainant asserts that in 2006 alone it spent over twenty million
dollars in advertising and marketing and that it has a strong online presence
via its websites. It further asserts
that individuals, organizations and businesses have come to recognize it as an
online source for quality computer-related products and services.
Complainant is the registered proprietor in the
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the <maccconnection.com> domain name on March 19, 2005 and that
Respondent is using the said domain name to display a series of hyperlinks that
advertise the products of Complainant and its competitors.
Complainant contends that the domain name <maccconnection.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
mark, MACCONNECTION, and that the domain name merely contains a slight
misspelling of Complainant’s mark.
Complainant submits that Respondent presumably receives click-through
fees for each redirected Internet user and that Respondent’s unauthorized use
of Complainant’s MACCONNECTION mark in the above disputed domain name is an
attempt to commercially benefit from advertising the products and services of
Complainant and its competitors.
Complainant further contends that Respondent is using the <maccconnection.com> domain name
to display a series of hyperlinks that advertise Complainant’s and its
competitors’ products and services and that this is likely to disrupt
Complainant’s business by diverting potential customer sales to Complainant’s
competitors.
Finally, Complainant points out that Respondent is a notorious
“cyber-squatter” and “typo-squatter” and between the period
of April 2, 207 to June 5, 2008, Respondent has lost seventy-three UDRP
complaints.
On this basis it is contended that Respondent’s use and registration of
the disputed domain name to operate a website that offers links to
Complainant’s competitors is yet another link in a long chain of bad faith
registrations.
B. Respondent
Respondent agrees to the relief
requested by Complainant and states that it will, upon order of the Panel, transfer
the disputed domain name. It does,
however, make clear that this is not an admission to the three elements of 4(a)
of the Policy but rather an offer of “unilateral consent to transfer” as prior panels
have deemed it.
FINDINGS
Respondent does not
contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the <maccconnection.com> domain
name. Rather, Respondent has
expressly consented to judgment in favor of Complainant and authorized the transfer
of the subject domain name.
For the reasons set out below the Panel is of
the view that by virtue of Respondent’s consent to or failure to oppose the
transfer of the disputed domain name that relief be granted and the disputed
domain name transferred to Complainant.
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 sets out three elements that need to be proved under the
Policy. However, for the reasons set out
below, such analysis is not required in this case.
DECISION
Consent to Transfer the Subject Domain Name
Respondent has failed to assert any
legitimate interest in the domain name. Further, Respondent does not contest
any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the <maccconnection.com> domain
name. Rather, Respondent has consented
to judgment in favor of Complainant.
The Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has consented to or not opposed the transfer of the disputed domain name, it should 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.”).
It should not go unnoticed that Complainant asserts (without
contradiction) that Respondent is a notorious "cyber-squatter” and
“typo-squatter.” The evidence provided
indicates that Respondent has indeed practiced in these affairs.
Notwithstanding Respondent's expedient of consenting to the transfer of the
disputed domain name, the outcome below should not in any way be seen as a
condoning by this Panel of Respondent’s conduct.
Relief is GRANTED on
this basis.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <maccconnection.com> domain name
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Clive Elliott, Panelist
Dated: August 5, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page