ValueVapor LLC v. Nathan Silver / Vapeatx
Claim Number: FA1402001541976
Complainant is ValueVapor LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Christopher S. Johns of Johns Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Nathan Silver / Vapeatx (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <valuevaporatx.com>, registered with Register.com, 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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 3, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 3, 2014.
On February 3, 2014, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <valuevaporatx.com> domain name is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com, 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 4, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 2014 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@valuevaporatx.com. Also on February 4, 2014, 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 suggesting consent to transfer was received and determined to be complete on February 20, 2014.
On March 3, 2014, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <valuevaporatx.com> domain name, the domain name at issue, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VALUE VAPOR mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.
3. Respondent registered and used the domain name at issue in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding other than email correspondence suggesting Respondent’s consent to transfer the domain name at issue.
Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer
The National Arbitration Forum was copied on documentation submitted from Respondent to Complainant, which is identified in this proceeding as “Other Correspondence.” In this document, Respondent notes that its business name and website have changed. Respondent states that the domain name has been changed to “oxmans vapor.” Respondent then states “there are many forms to the links you sent me, if there is a special form I need to fill out can attached it.” Although Respondent does not outright say that it consents to the transfer of the <valuevaporatx.com> domain name, the Panel infers that Respondent’s claim that both its business and domain names have been changed was meant as a consent to transfer the disputed domain name. 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 <valuevaporatx.com> 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.”).
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <valuevaporatx.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: March 4, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page