Michelin North America, Inc. v. S. Faulkner
Claim Number: FA0902001245608
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.
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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred to it forthwith.
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.
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.”
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