Walter D Chanter v.
Claim Number: FA1001001304758
Complainant is Walter D Chanter (“Complainant”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mercedesbenzofportland.com>,
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.
Hon. Sir Ian Barker as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 26, 2010. With its Complaint, Complainant also chose to proceed entirely electronically under the new Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”) and the new Forum’s Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Supplemental Rules”) by submitted an “opt-in” form available on the Forum’s website.
On January 29, 2010, Hebei International Trading (
On February 9, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 1, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to email@example.com. Also on February 9, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
A Response was received after the Response deadline, and not in electronic format, and determined to be deficient under ICANN Rule 5(a). Respondent did not indicate assent to participate in an electronic process; therefore Respondent’s submission was required to be sent in hard copy per the version of UDRP Rule 5 currently in effect.
On March 9, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Sir Ian Barker as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (effective March 1, 2010, but opted-in to by Complainant for this case) "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
The Panel has decided to accept the Response as filed despite its deficiencies. This is because on that Response, the Respondent agreed to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
The Complainant does business in
The Complainant gave the Respondent no rights to use the disputed domain name. The Complainant owns no registered trademark.
In its Response, the Respondent made no claim to the disputed domain name. It stipulated that the disputed domain name registration be transferred to the Complainant.
The Respondent has consented to the transfer to the Complainant of the disputed domain name.
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.
However, where a respondent has admitted that he/she/it does not have
an interest in a disputed domain name and has consented to the transfer of the
disputed domain name, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and
order the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name. See
The same approach can be found in WIPO decisions such as Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. VEZ-Port, D2000-0207 (WIPO May 8, 2000), Slumberland France v. Chadia Acohuri, D2000-0195 (WIPO June 14, 2000).
The Panel notes that the information provided in the Complaint –
prepared apparently without legal advice – is spartan in the extreme. Little information was given of the sort
usually required to prove a common law trademark in the disputed domain name in
the absence of a registered trademark. Had
the matter been defended, the Complainant would have struggled to satisfy the
However, the Panel is prepared to accept that the Complainant has a
mark sufficient for the purposes of
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mercedesbenzofportland.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Sir Ian Barker, Panelist
Dated: March 23, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum