3M Company v. Domain Admin
Claim Number: FA1202001429751
Complainant is 3M Company (“Complainant”), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin (“Respondent”), Finland.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <steristrips.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 14, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 14, 2012.
On February 21, 2012, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <steristrips.com> domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, Inc. 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 February 22, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 13, 2012 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@steristrips.com. Also on February 22, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. In other correspondence to the National Arbitration Forum, the Respondent expressed no objection to transferring the domain name to Complainant.
On March 19, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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 (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <steristrips.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STERI-STRIP mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <steristrips.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <steristrips.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding but in other correspondence consented to the transfer of the domain name.
As noted above, the Complainant has requested transfer of the domain name and the Respondent has stated that there is no objection to the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant.
As the panel held in The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, D2005-1123 (WIPO Jan 5, 2006):
A genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. Where the Complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, then pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer.
There may be circumstances where it is appropriate to proceed to a consideration of the merits of a Complaint, for example where it is desirable to make a public finding of bad faith against a serial cybersquatter who has repeatedly sought to avoid such a finding by timely concession. The Panel has discretion to consider the merits where appropriate, even if the respondent has consented to the relief sought by the complainant.
In this case, however, the Panel does not consider it appropriate to address the merits.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <steristrips.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: March 27, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page