Lover's Lane, IP, Ltd. v.
Claim Number: FA0904001259080
Complainant is Lover's Lane, IP, Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Christopher
M. Taylor, of Butzel Long,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <loverslanelingerie.com>, registered with Compana, Llc.
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.
Bruce E. O’Connor as Panelist.
This decision is being rendered in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the National Arbitration Forum’s UDRP Supplemental Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 23, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 27, 2009.
On April 27, 2009, Compana, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <loverslanelingerie.com> domain name is registered with Compana, Llc and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Compana, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Compana, Llc registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On May 6, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 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 email@example.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 26, 2009.
On June 3, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. O’Connor as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Complainant owns various trademarks consisting of or including LOVER’S LANE, which have been registered and used in conjunction with the sale of adult-themed goods and services including lingerie (the “Trademarks”).
The domain name at issue is almost identical to the Trademarks, being distinguished only by the deletion of the apostrophe, the addition of the generic term “lingerie,” and the addition of the generic top level domain “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.
Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name.
Respondent agrees to the relief requested by Complainant. Respondent does not make an admission of the three elements of ¶ 4(a) of the Policy, but offers a “unilateral consent to transfer.”
Complainant has established rights in the Trademarks by reason of its trademark registrations.
Both Complainant and Respondent request transfer of the domain name to Complainant.
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 forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the domain name in issue. 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.”).
Other UDRP proceedings involving this very
Respondent in which the panels accepted the Respondent’s consent to transfer are: California Academy of Sciences v. Texas
International Property Associates, FA 944494 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 15,
2007); The Orvis Company Inc. v.
Some panels in other UDRP proceedings involving this Respondent have concluded that
there should be a decision on the merits by the panel. Those panels have found that the
“consent-to-transfer” approach is but one way for cybersquatters to avoid
adverse findings against them. See Graebel Van Lines, Inc. v.
The Panel disagrees with the panels in Graabel Van Lines and in President and Fellows of
Respondent having consented to the transfer, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <loverslanelingerie.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. O’Connor, Panelist
Dated: June 17, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum