National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

Expedia, Inc. v. Louise Short

Claim Number: FA0704000954076

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Expedia, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Sharon A. Ceresnie, of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5000, Chicago, IL 60606.  Respondent is Louise Short (“Respondent”), Suite 562, 2245 N Greenvalley Parkway, Henderson, NV 89014.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <expediacarhire.com>, registered with Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Calvin A. Hamilton as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 4, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 9, 2007.

 

On April 5, 2007, Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <expediacarhire.com> domain name is registered with Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com 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 April 12, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 2, 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@expediacarhire.com by e-mail.

 

The National Arbitration Forum received a Response electronically on May 2, 2007, but did not receive the Response in hard copy format until after the deadline for Response.  Therefore, the Response is deficient according to Supplemental Rule 5(a).

 

On May 10, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Calvin A. Hamilton as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A.     Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

a.       The domain name <expediacarhire.com> is identical and/or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

b.      Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that is subject to the Complaint;

c.       Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

 

B.     Respondent makes the following assertions:

 

a.       The domain name <expediacarhire.com> was registered by error.

b.      Respondent is in agreement with the transfer of said domain name to Complainant.

 

FINDINGS

The panel will not make any findings of fact, for the reasons explained below.

 

DISCUSSION

            Procedural Issue: Deficient Response

 

The first issue to be decided by this Panel is a procedural issue, namely whether or not to admit the Response, which, although the National Arbitration Forum received Respondent’s electronic submission in a timely manner, Respondent failed to submit a hard copy within the time allowed.

 

Under Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, it is established that: "If a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, these Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate."

 

In the light of the above, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to comply with the Rules as he considers appropriate (see Rule 14(b); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000)).

 

Given that the non-compliance of the Rules is of a technical nature, the Panel accepts the Response and will give the document due consideration.  See Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Nowak, D2003-0022 (WIPO Mar. 4, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s failure to submit a hard copy of the response and its failure to include any evidence to support a finding in its favor placed the respondent in a de facto default posture, permitting the panel to draw all appropriate inferences stated in the complaint); see also J.W. Spear & Sons PLC v. Fun League Mgmt., FA 180628 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (finding that where the respondent submitted a timely response electronically, but failed to submit a hard copy of the response on time, “[t]he Panel is of the view that given the technical nature of the breach and the need to resolve the real dispute between the parties that this submission should be allowed and given due weight”).

 

Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer the Subject Domain Name

 

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 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;

(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.

 

However, in this case Respondent does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the <expediacarhire.com> domain name.  Rather, Respondent has consented to judgment in favor of Complainant and authorizes the immediate transfer of the subject domain name.  In a circumstance such as this, where a respondent has admitted that it does not have an interest in the disputed domain name and has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name.  See Tex. Med. Ctr. v. Spinder, FA 886496 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (foregoing the traditional Policy analysis where the respondent stipulated to the transfer of the disputed domain names to the complainant); see also Richard Simon Jocelyn Peter Adams v. Truth About Jos, FA 907564 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2007) (concluding that when a respondent stipulates to the transfer of the disputed domain name in its response or expresses a willingness to transfer the disputed domain name to the complainant, the Panel can forego an analysis of the Policy and order the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Secure Whois Info. Serv., FA 910715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2007) (“In light of Respondent’s request that the Panel enter an order transferring the disputed domain name to Complainant without findings of fact on the elements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, and the lack of any objection thereto, the Panel declines to set forth or address the Parties’ contentions.”).

 

In addition, Respondent has admitted that the domain name was registered in error by a zealous employee.

 

DECISION

Given the common request of the parties, it is Ordered that the <expediacarhire.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

Calvin A. Hamilton, Panelist
Dated: May 24, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum