Dream Execution Technology
Claim Number: FA0807001218178
PARTIES
Complainant is Dream Execution Technology Co. Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by John
E. Cummerford, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <warrock.com>, registered with Fabulous.com
Pty Ltd.
PANEL
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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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, Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to
the National Arbitration Forum that the <warrock.com> domain name is
registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. and
that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Fabulous.com
Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fabulous.com 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 postmaster@warrock.com 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
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
Dream Execution was founded in 2000 and is located in
In addition to the trademarks it owns, Dream Execution owns the domain
name <warrock.net> 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
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.
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 <warrock.com>
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.”).
DECISION
Therefore, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <warrock.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Daniel B. Banks, Jr., Panelist
Dated: September 29, 2008