Envision IP, LLC v. Haizhu Bai / Envision IP Law Group
Claim Number: FA1410001584828
Complainant is Envision IP, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Maulin V. Shah of Envision IP, LLC, New York, USA. Respondent is Haizhu Bai / Envision IP Law Group (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <envisioniplaw.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
ROBERT T.PFEUFFER, Senior District Judge, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 14, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 14, 2014.
On October 15, 2014, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <envisioniplaw.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 October 15, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 4, 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@envisioniplaw.com. Also on October 15, 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 was received and determined to be complete on October 23, 2014.
On October 31 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed
ROBERT T. PFEUFFER 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
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) 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.
B. Respondent
None
The Respondent has declined to formally respond to the allegations lodged against it by Complainant and has agreed to transfer the disputed domain names.
Paragraph 15(a) of 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."
Respondent consents to transfer the <envisioniplaw.com> domain name 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 has decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <envisioniplaw.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.”).
The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <envisioniplaw.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
ROBERT T. PFEUFFER, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page