national arbitration forum

DECISION

Novartis AG v. Steve Cossins / SEO Vantage

Claim Number: FA1312001532827

PARTIES

Complainant is Novartis AG (“Complainant”), represented by Maury M. Tepper of Tepper & Eyster, PLLC, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Steve Cossins / SEO Vantage (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <airoptixcontactlenses.info>, registered with eNom, Inc.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electron-ically on December 4, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 4, 2013.

On December 6, 2013, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail message addressed to the National Arbitration Forum that the <airoptixcontactlenses.info> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. reg-istration 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 December 9, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, includ-ing a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 30, 2013 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all en-tities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrat-ive, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@airoptixcontactlenses.info. Also on December 9, 2013, 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.

On January 2, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute de-cided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.

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 Not-ices, 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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant discovers, develops, manufactures and distributes products for, among other things, vision care and eye health.

Complainant holds registrations, which are on file with the United States Patent and Trade-mark Office (“USPTO”) for the AIR OPTIX trademark (including Reg-istry No. 3,490,248, registered August 19, 2008).

Respondent registered the contested <airoptixcontactlenses.info> domain name on June 17, 2013.

The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIR OPTIX mark.

Respondent has not been commonly known by either the name AIR OPTIX or the disputed domain name.

Respondent has no connection to or affiliation with Complainant.

Complainant has not consented to Respondent’s use of the AIR OPTIX mark.

Respondent employs the domain name to operate a website seeking to generate “click-through” revenue from Internet users searching for information about Com-plainant and its contact lens products.

Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.

Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the AIR OPTIX mark prior to the registration of the domain name.

Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, in an e-mail message addressed to the National Arbitration Forum, Respondent has declared as follows:

I have no need for this domain. When it expires it won’t be renewed. If I’m able to transfer it, I will.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:

i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, 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 accord-ance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

Further, Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, where a party fails to comply with requirements laid on by the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from that failure as it considers appropriate.

DECISION

It appears from the record that Respondent does not contest the allegations of the Complaint. It further appears that Respondent does not object to Complain-ant’s request for the transfer to it of the subject domain name as prayed for in the Complaint. Rather Respondent has expressed in writing its willingness to permit the domain name to be transferred to Complainant. The parties have therefore tacitly agreed to the transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings. In the exceptional cir-cumstances here presented, we conclude that no worthwhile purpose would be served by a rendition of findings otherwise customary in proceedings of this sort.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <airoptixcontactlenses.info> be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.

Terry F. Peppard, Panelist

Dated: January 7, 2014