Diners Club International Ltd. v. DINERS
Claim Number: FA1107001397292
Complainant is Diners Club International Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is DINERS (“Respondent”), represented by Lee Perry, Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <dinersdrinkcard.com>, registered with TIERRANET INC. d/b/a DOMAINDISCOVER.
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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 6, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 7, 2011.
On July 7, 2011, TIERRANET INC. d/b/a DOMAINDISCOVER confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <dinersdrinkcard.com> domain name is registered with TIERRANET INC. d/b/a DOMAINDISCOVER and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TIERRANET INC. d/b/a DOMAINDISCOVER has verified that Respondent is bound by the TIERRANET INC. d/b/a DOMAINDISCOVER 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 July 11, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 1, 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@dinersdrinkcard.com. Also on July 11, 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 July 26, 2011.
On July 28, 201, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Complainant is the owner of the mark DINERS, registered to Complainant at the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (Reg. No. 1,462,209, Registered October 20, 1987) for credit card services. Respondent’s <dinersdrinkcard.com> domain name (the “Domain Name”) is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s DINERS mark.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
3. Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent consents to the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant and requests that the Panel forego the UDRP analysis of the three elements of the Complaint as set forth in the Policy.
Paragraph 15(a) of 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 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) 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.
The Panel makes the findings and determinations set forth below with respect to the Domain Name.
The Respondent has consented to the transfer of the Domain Name and has requested the Panel to forego an analysis of the three elements of the Complaint as set forth in the Policy. In these circumstances a panel is permitted to dispense with the normal UDRP analysis and simply order the transfer of the domain name as requested by both parties. 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.”). For the reasons articulated in the foregoing decisions, this Panel elects to order the transfer of the Domain Name without an analysis of the three elements of a complaint as set forth in the Policy.
Upon Respondent’s consent to a transfer of the Domain Name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dinersdrinkcard.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
Dated: August 3, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page