National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. v. Julian Overton / Grammy Nation
Claim Number: FA1410001585496
Complainant is National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joel R. Feldman of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Julian Overton / Grammy Nation (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <grammynation.com>, registered with TUCOWS, INC.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 17, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 17, 2014.
On October 20, 2014, TUCOWS, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <grammynation.com> domain name is registered with TUCOWS, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TUCOWS, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the TUCOWS, 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 October 23, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 12, 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@grammynation.com. Also on October 23, 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 24, 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 Richard Hill 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
The Complainant alleges that it owns the mark GRAMMY, with rights dating back to 1959. It is used for the presentation of the internationally famous GRAMMY Awards. The Complainant’s primary Internet presence is <grammy.com>, which is used to offer information about the recording industry. These elements are sufficient to establish rights in the mark. The Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, in the sense of the Policy, to its mark. The Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
The Complainant states that the Respondent cannot establish legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. Previously, the Respondent was using the disputed domain name to promote his own competing sound recordings and music-related services. This is an infringing use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent registered, used, and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith in violation of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy by intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
The Respondent states that the web site at the disputed domain name has not been active for several months and that he has closed his account with the service provider that he had been using.
He states that the Complainant can have the disputed domain name.
The panel will not make any findings of fact, for the reasons explained below.
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."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 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.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not analyze the three elements of the Policy.
The Respondent consents to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. In such cases, previous panels have decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to 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.”).
The Panel holds that this approach is valid for the present case, so the disputed domain name should be transferred without making any findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
Given the common request of the parties, it is Ordered that the <grammynation.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: November 2, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page