SkyHawke Technologies, LLC v.
Claim Number: FA0902001247300
Complainant is SkyHawke
Technologies, LLC (“Complainant”),
represented by Kyoko Imai, of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <skycaddiereview.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 12, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 13, 2009.
On February 12, 2009, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <skycaddiereview.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, Inc. 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 16, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 9, 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 email@example.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 2, 2009.
On March 5, 2009,
pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed R.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
In its complaint, Complainant asserts that it
holds a trademark, “SKYCADDIE.” That
trademark is registered in the
The Complainant goes on to make assertions concerning the identity or confusing similarity of the names; that Respondent has no rights or interest in the names; that Respondent has registered the name in bad faith.
In response, the Respondent has agreed to the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant. Further, Respondent has requested that an order be entered and that no findings of fact be entered.
Respondent consents to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant. However, after the initiation of this proceeding, Godaddy.com, Inc. placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain name while this proceeding is still pending. As a result, the Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an 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.”).
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.
As indicated above, the Respondent has consented to the transfer and therefore no discussion of the three elements is necessary; an order that the domain name be transferred will be entered.
Respondent having consented to the transfer, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <skycaddiereview.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
R. GLEN AYERS, Panelist
Dated: March 17, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page