national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

WordPress Foundation v. Anjan Bhushan

Claim Number: FA1105001388613

 

PARTIES

Complainant is WordPress Foundation (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, Pennsylvania, USA.  Respondent is Anjan Bhushan (“Respondent”), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <wordpreess.org> and <wordprwss.org>, registered with 1 & 1 Internet AG.

 

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.

 

Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 13, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on May 18, 2011.

 

On May 19, 2011, 1 & 1 Internet AG confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wordpreess.org> and <wordprwss.org> domain names are registered with 1 & 1 Internet AG and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  1 & 1 Internet AG has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1 & 1 Internet AG registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On May 24, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 13, 2011 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@wordpreess.org and postmaster@wordprwss.org.  Also on May 24, 2011, 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 June 6, 2011.

 

On June 8, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant claims to own the WORDPRESS Trademarks, making extensive use of them such that they have become well-known. At least as early as March 28, 2003, the complainant and its licensee Automattic, Inc., commenced use of the trademarks in connection with, what Complainant describes, has become the largest, self-hosted blogging and internet publishing tool in the world, used on millions of websites and seen by tens of millions of people every day in hundreds of different languages.  Since its inception, Complainant claims to have continually used the trademarks in commerce and has gained both common-law and registered trademark rights.

 

The Complainants <wordpress.org> domain ranks high on Quantcast.com, and in 2004 and early 2005 the Complainant was mentioned in articles on the famous cNet.com technology website as well as the New York Times and the first Wikipedia page discussing Complainant’s services was created. 

 

Complainant’s WORDPRESS marks are protected through registration and enforcement, in countries like the United States and Canada.

 

According to the Complainant, the Disputed Domains are identical or confusingly similar to complainant’s trademarks. The Respondents actions are not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i).  Through the use of a classic pay-per-click site and a page containing Google Ads and links to the Indian Org.in provider, Respondent’s domain names divert Complainant’s customers and potential customers to Respondent’s website and to other websites which are not associated with Complainant and, in some cases, may be associated with Complainant’s competitors. 

 

B. Respondent

The Respondent states that both disputed domain names were registered because of misinterpretation by staff about instructions provided. Respondent asserts that Respondent would like to transfer the domain names to the Complainant without any delay, and regret the inconvenience caused to Complainant. Respondent asserts that Respondent consents to the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant without any obligation.

 

 

FINDINGS

 

According to Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “a Panel shall 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.”

 

In this case, Respondent does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. In fact, Respondent claims states that the disputed domain names were registered by mistake / misinterpretation about instructions.

 

Therefore, under these special circumstances, this Panel decides to forego the traditional UDRP analysis, not to make any further findings or discussion, and order the 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.”).

 

 

DECISION

Giving the special circumstances in this case, and the fact that Respondent does not contest the transfer of the domain names, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wordpreess.org> and <wordprwss.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated:  June 13, 2011

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page