ThoughtWorks, Inc. v.
ThoughtWorks, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0703000934366
PARTIES
Complainant is ThoughtWorks, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Daniel
Goodwin, 200 E.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <thoughtwork.com>, registered
with Nameview,
Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and
impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in
serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically March 7, 2007; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint March 8, 2007.
On March 26, 2007, Nameview, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <thoughtwork.com> domain name is
registered with Nameview, Inc. and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nameview, Inc.
verified that Respondent is bound by the Nameview,
Inc. registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve
domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 29, 2007, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of April 18, 2007, 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@thoughtwork.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete April 11, 2007.
No additional submissions were filed.
On April 14, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
Preliminary Issue:
When Complainant initially filed
its Complaint, Respondent’s WHOIS information for the <thoughtwork.com> domain name identified Respondent as “THOUGHTWORK.COM
c/o Whois IDentity Shield.”
Shortly
thereafter, the WHOIS information was updated to reflect “ThoughtWorks, Inc.”
as the registrant of the disputed domain name.
As a result, it appears that Complainant and Respondent are the same
entity. However, Complainant still does
not have access to the <thoughtwork.com>
domain name.
Given the circumstances, Complainant, acting as Respondent, chose to
submit a Response to the Complaint agreeing to transfer the disputed domain
name.
Respondent’s activities may be classified as “cyberflying,” a practice of changing the registrant of a domain name before or during a UDRP proceeding in an attempt to disrupt the proceeding and circumvent the Policy.
Where Respondent purports to
transfer the contested domain name to Complainant, previous panels have ordered
the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name without analyzing the
elements of the Policy. 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.”).
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 Complainant to 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;
(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.
No dispute
exists on any of the three elements that would require resolution.
FINDINGS
The Panel has reviewed the submissions filed by Complainant on its own behalf and on behalf of Respondent to determine if disputed issues of fact, law, or applicability of the ICANN Policy, would suggest the need for resolution by the Panel.
The Panel finds that no disputed issues of fact, law or determination of the applicability of the requirements of ICANN Policy remain for resolution.
DECISION
Therefore, the three elements being
agreed, under the ICANN Policy, the
Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <thoughtwork.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks
Johnson, Panelist
Dated: April 30, 2007.
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum