Michelin North America, Inc.
v. S. Faulkner
Claim Number: FA0902001245608
PARTIES
Complainant is Michelin North America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Neil
M. Batavia, of Dority & Manning,
Attorneys at Law, P.A.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <michelin-tyre.com>, registered with Melbourne
It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.
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.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on February 2, 2009; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 4, 2009.
On February 4, 2009, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide
confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <michelin-tyre.com>
domain name is registered with Melbourne It,
Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that the Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne
It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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 February 6, 2009, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 26, 2009 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@michelin-tyre.com by
e-mail.
A Response was received on February 26,
2009; however, it was determined to be deficient under ICANN Rule #5(a) because
no hard copy of the Response was received before the deadline.
On March 3, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred to it
forthwith.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The domain
name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
Respondent
has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
The domain
name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response fully compliant with the requirements of the Policy. Its deficient Response does not deny the material allegations of the Complaint, but recites, in pertinent part, as follows:
“I have never set up the domain name that is in dispute and wish to have no claim to the domain name, Michelin-tyre.com, and want my name removed from said domain name…. I do not know when or how this domain name was set up in my name,....”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:
i.
the
domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii.
the domain name
has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Notwithstanding
the foregoing, 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.”
DECISION
It appears from the record that Respondent is the victim of identity theft in the creation of the disputed domain name. Therefore, and Inasmuch as Respondent does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint and does not object to Complainant’s request for the transfer to it of the subject domain name, as prayed for in the Complaint, the parties have tacitly agreed to the transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings. In the exceptional circumstances here presented, we conclude that no worthwhile purpose would be served by a rendition of the findings otherwise customary in proceedings of this sort.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <michelin-tyre.com> domain name be forthwith
TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: March 16, 2009
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum