Sony Corporation v. Mustafa Dolek
Claim Number: FA1209001461142
Complainant is Sony Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Mark Sommers of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is Mustafa Dolek (“Respondent”), Turkey.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <sony-cctv.net> and <sonycctv.biz>, registered with ONLINENIC, INC. d/b/a CHINA-CHANNEL.COM.
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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 4, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 4, 2012.
On September 5, 2012 ONLINENIC, INC. d/b/a CHINA-CHANNEL.COM confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <sony-cctv.net> and <sonycctv.biz> domain names are registered with ONLINENIC, INC. d/b/a CHINA-CHANNEL.COM and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. ONLINENIC, INC. d/b/a CHINA-CHANNEL.COM has verified that Respondent is bound by the ONLINENIC, INC. d/b/a CHINA-CHANNEL.COM 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 September 6, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 26, 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@sony-cctv.net and postmaster@sonycctv.biz. Also on September 6, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 7, 2012.
On October 1, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
Respondent’s <sony-cctv.net> and <sonycctv.biz> domain names, the domain names at issue, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SONY mark.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names at issue.
Respondent registered and used the domain names at issue in bad faith.
B. Respondent filed a response stating that it was using the domain names at issue in connection with the distribution of Complainant’s Sony products in Turkey. Specifically, Respondent says, “We can to introduce this products on our other domain names. These domain names are not important to us. We wait your resolution.” The Panel interprets this statement to constitute a consent to transfer as there were no defenses to transfer put forward by Respondent.
Respondent consents to transfer the <sony-cctv.net> and <sonycctv.biz> domain names to Complainant. As a result, the Panel finds 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 will forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the domain names. 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.”).
The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain names <sony-cctv.net> and <sonycctv.biz> be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: October 5, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page