Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Washington Dulles Flyer Taxi
Claim Number: FA1009001344357
PARTIES
Complainant is Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (“Complainant”), represented by Alain J. Lapter, of Bean, Kinney & Korman, P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Washington Dulles Flyer Taxi (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <washflytaxi.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
PANEL
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.
M. Kelly Tillery, Esquire as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 1, 2010.
On September 3, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <washflytaxi.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 September 10, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 30, 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@washflytaxi.com by e-mail. Also on September 10, 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 September 13, 2010.
On October 1, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed M. Kelly Tillery, Esquire as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to its WASHFLY mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in same, and Respondent registered and is using same in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent does not contest this claim and consents to transfer of the domain name.
FINDINGS
Complainant shall prevail as the matter is not contested and Respondent consents to transfer.
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.
Respondent consents to transfer the <washflytaxi.com> domain name to Complainant. 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 finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent does not contest the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel need not conduct the traditional UDRP analysis and may order the immediate transfer of the <washflytaxi.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.”).
DECISION
The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <washflytaxi.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
M. Kelly Tillery,
Esquire, Panelist
Dated: October 6, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum