Association, Inc. v.
Claim Number: FA0807001214237
Complainant is Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Emily
Mechem, of Arent Fox LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <metoperashop.com>, registered with Budgetnames.
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.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 7, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 8, 2008.
On July 9, 2008, Budgetnames confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <metoperashop.com> domain name is registered with Budgetnames and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Budgetnames has verified that Respondent is bound by the Budgetnames 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 July 9, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 29, 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 email@example.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 29, 2008.
On August 6, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Complainant, also known as The Metropolitan Opera or simply “the Met,”
is the most widely heard and known opera company in the world. Founded in 1883, the Met is America’s largest
classical music organization and is home for creative and talented artists,
including singers, conductors, composers, orchestra musicians, stage directors,
designers, visual artists, choreographers, and dancers from around the
world. More than 800,000 people attend
the performances in the opera house during the season, and millions more
experience the Met through advanced new media distribution initiatives and
state-of-the-art technology. Met owns a
radio broadcast series, now in its 77th year, that is the
longest-running classical music series in American broadcast history. Since at least as early as 1973, Complainant
first used MET as a trademark in connection with opera related goods and
services. Today, Complainant owns and
uses in commerce the trademark MET and marks containing MET or METROPOLITAN
(collectively, the “MET marks”), in connection with its opera services. Complainant owns the following U.S. trademark
registrations for the MET Marks: MET, issued
October 9, 1984; MET TITLES, issued
February 11, 1997; GREAT ARTISTS AT THE
MET, issued October 9, 1984; METROPOLITAN OPERA issued January 22, 1985. As result of Complainant’s longstanding and
extensive use, advertising, and marketing of the MET marks through a wide
variety of media, including the Internet, these marks have acquired tremendous
commercial strength and goodwill, have come immediately to identify the source
of Complainant’s goods and services, and are well-known in the
Respondent agrees to the relief requested by Complainant in this case. 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. Respondent requests that the Panel order the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name.
1. Complainant has rights in its METROPOLITAN OPERA Marks and its other MET marks as result of registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
2. Respondent’s domain name, <metoperashop.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks.
3. Respondent has consented to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant and requests this Panel immediately transfer the domain name to Complainant.
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.
In a case of this nature where there is no
dispute between the parties and where Respondent has no objection to
Complainant’s request for relief and, in fact, requests the Panel to grant the
relief requested by Complainant, there is no need for a formal analysis of the
three elements noted above. See
Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd-Cayman Web Dev., FA133625
(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., FA212653 (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, FA47591 (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 Panel is aware that
the “consent to transfer” approach is considered by some panels as a way for
cybersquatters to avoid adverse findings against them. See Graebel Van Lines, Inc. v.
Both Complainant and Respondent having requested that the disputed domain name to be transferred from Respondent to Complainant and this agreement to transfer not being in violation of the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <metoperashop.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: August 20, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum