PSC Management, Limited Partnership v.
sinetbiz.com
Claim Number: FA0601000627131
PARTIES
Complainant is PSC Management, Limited Partnership (“Complainant”), represented by Cathryn Berryman, of Jenkens & Gilchrist, 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 3700, Dallas, TX 75202. Respondent is sinetbiz.com (“Respondent”), 800 Victory Blvd., 6f, Staten Island, NY 10301.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <perotglobal.com> and <perotusa.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, 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.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on January 16, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a
hard copy of the Complaint on January 18, 2006.
On January 18, 2006, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <perotglobal.com> and <perotusa.com> domain names are registered with Go Daddy
Software, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the
name. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, 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 January 20, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of February 9, 2006 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@perotglobal.com and postmaster@perotusa.com
by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February
9, 2006.
On February 16, 2006, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as
Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
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;
(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
Respondent agrees with Complainant’s contentions and requested relief.
FINDINGS
(1)
the domain name
registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or
service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(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.
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.
Respondent has chosen not to challenge any of Complainant’s assertions and has agreed to transfer the <perotglobal.com> and <perotusa.com> domain names to Complainant in satisfaction of Complainant’s requested remedy. When a respondent has agreed to comply with the complainant’s request, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and summarily order the transfer of the domain names. 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.”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <perotglobal.com>
and <perotusa.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator,
Panelist
Dated: March 2, 2006
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum