National Arbitration Forum




Dream Execution Technology Co. Ltd. v. Privacy Ltd. Disclosed Agent for YOLAPT

Claim Number: FA0807001218178



Complainant is Dream Execution Technology Co. Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by John E. Cummerford, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Arizona, USA.  Respondent is Privacy Ltd. Disclosed Agent for YOLAPT (“Respondent”), represented by Maria Bergsten, of Renova, Ltd Barcelona, Spain.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Pty Ltd.



The undersigned Daniel B. Banks, Jr., as Panelist, 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.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 30, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 31, 2008.


On August 7, 2008, Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Pty Ltd. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Pty 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 August 14, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September 3, 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 timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 3, 2008.



On September 14, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Daniel B. Banks, Jr., as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

Complainant is the owner of the trademark and service mark WAR ROCK which has been in continuous use since 2003 and is registered in the Republic of Korea, Registration No. 908,746.  Complainant also has registrations and pending applications for its mark in the United States and an International Registration with the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) designating registration in China, European Community, Japan and the United States. 


Dream Execution was founded in 2000 and is located in Seoul, Korea.  It is a game development studio focusing in game engine and online game development and is the creator of the patented game engine technology known as jindo engine.  Among its on-line games is WAR ROCK.


In addition to the trademarks it owns, Dream Execution owns the domain name <> which incorporates the WAR ROCK trademark.


Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; that the Respondent should not be considered as having any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith.



Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in a large portfolio pursuant to a written agreement that contained warranties and representations that the domain name was not in violation of the intellectual property rights of any third party.


Respondent strongly argues that it did not register the domain name in bad faith nevertheless Respondent expressly requests that the domain name be transferred to Complainant without findings.



Respondent does not dispute Complainant’s contentions as outlined in the Complaint except for the claim that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.  In its Response, Respondent consents to the immediate transfer of the <> domain name and expressly stipulates and requests transfer of the domain name to the Complainant.  The Panel finds in instances where Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, it is unnecessary to analyze the case according to the primary elements of the UDRP.  Instead, due to Respondent’s consent to transfer the disputed domain name and in the interest of expediency and judiciousness, the Panel orders the immediate transfer of the disputed 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.”).



Therefore, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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




Daniel B. Banks, Jr., Panelist
Dated: September 29, 2008