National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc. v. Rick Pritchard

Claim Number: FA1007001337628

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James B. Belshe, of Workman Nydegger, Utah, USA.  Respondent is Rick Pritchard (“Respondent”), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is/are <epsonspares.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

R. Glen Ayers served as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 27, 2010.

 

On July 28, 2010, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <epsonspares.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 August 2, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 23, 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 postmaster@epsonspares.com by e-mail.  Also on August 2, 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 timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 4, 2010.

 

On August 12, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, The National Arbitration Forum appointed R. Glen Ayers as Panelist

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant has asserted that its Mark and Domain name are identical. It has also asserted that Respondent has no rights in the name and that Respondent has acted in bad faith. It has asserted that Respondent failed to respond to a cease and decist demand.

 

B. Respondent

In correspondence to with the Forum, Respondent stated: “I wish not to dispute this Case. If it helps I will cancel the domain name if I can. Please advise if that will help. Rick Pritchard”.

 

C. Additional Submissions

None.

 

FINDINGS

Because respondent consents to the transfer of the domain name and does not contest the allegations of the Complainant, detailed findings and a detailed discussion are unnecessary, as set out below.

 

DISCUSSION

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, after the initiation of this proceeding, GoDaddy.com 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 may find 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 <epsonspares.com> 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.”)Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

DECISION

Having received a Response consenting to the requested transfer and declining to contest the Complaint, the Panel concludes that the relief requested by Complainant shall be granted.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <epsonspares.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED  from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

R. Glen Ayers, Panelist

Dated: August 17, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum