SkyHawke Technologies, LLC v.
Claim Number: FA0902001247300
PARTIES
Complainant is SkyHawke
Technologies, LLC (“Complainant”),
represented by Kyoko Imai, of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <skycaddiereview.com>,
registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he or she has
acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has
no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
R.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the
National Arbitration Forum electronically on February
12, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on February 13, 2009.
On February
12, 2009, Godaddy.com, Inc.
confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <skycaddiereview.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 February
16, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 9,
2009 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@skycaddiereview.com
by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined
to be complete on March 2, 2009.
On March 5, 2009,
pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed R.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
In its complaint, Complainant asserts that it
holds a trademark, “SKYCADDIE.” That
trademark is registered in the
The Complainant goes on to make assertions
concerning the identity or confusing similarity of the names; that Respondent
has no rights or interest in the names; that Respondent has registered the name
in bad faith.
B. Respondent
In response, the Respondent has agreed to the
transfer of the domain name to the Complainant.
Further, Respondent has requested that an order be entered and that no
findings of fact be entered.
FINDINGS
Respondent consents to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant. However, after the initiation of this proceeding, Godaddy.com, Inc. 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 has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an 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.”).
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.
See below.
See below.
See below.
As indicated above, the Respondent has
consented to the transfer and therefore no discussion of the three elements is
necessary; an order that the domain name be transferred will be entered.
DECISION
Respondent having consented to the transfer,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <skycaddiereview.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
R. GLEN AYERS, Panelist
Dated: March 17, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page