The Mary Bono Committee v. Michael
Grace
Claim Number: FA0705000990456
PARTIES
Complainant is The
Mary Bono Committee (“Complainant”),
represented by William B. Canfield, of Williams & Jensen, PLLC,
Suite 300, 1155 Twenty-First Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036. Respondent is Michael Grace (“Respondent”), PO
Box 5263, Palm Springs, CA 92263.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <marybono.net>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that she has acted
independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known
conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Carol M. Stoner, Esq., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National
Arbitration Forum electronically on May 18, 2007;
the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 22, 2007.
The Complaint was amended to annex documentary evidence, including a
copy of the ICANN Policy and a schedule indexing such evidence.
On May 21, 2007,
Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by
e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <marybono.net> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is
the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions,
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 May 24, 2007,
a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 13, 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@marybono.net by e-mail.
A Response was received on May 29, 2007. The Response
was deficient under ICANN Rule 5 as it was not received in hard copy.
On June 4, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration
Forum appointed Carol M. Stoner, Esq., as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be
transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that the Mary Bono Committee is
the principal campaign committee of Congresswoman Mary Bono (45th
Cong. Dist. California) and is registered with and regulated by the Federal
Election Committee, 999 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20463. The Mary Bono
Committee is the re-election committee for Congresswoman Mary Bono. In communicating with the public on matters
involving the campaign, the committee employs the website <marybono.com> and this is the
only website affiliated with the campaign.
Complainant states that, on or about August 4, 2003,
Complainant originally registered the domain name <marybono.net>
with Network Solutions, LLC. In the
summer of 2006, Complainant’s ability to use this domain name lapsed and
Respondent obtained this domain name and informed the public in the website
<desertpun.com> and the Mary Bono campaign committee, that Respondent
intended to use the website to disparage Congresswoman Bono. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s intent
was to leave the mis-impression that <marybono.net> was the
official website for Congresswoman’s Bono re-election campaign.
Complainant initiated a formal sworn complaint with
the Federal Election Committee stating that Respondent failed to file with the
Federal Election Committee as a federal political committee, which Complainant
stated was required by Respondent’s actions in spending more than $1000.00 on a
fraudulent weblog and in an indicated intent to create a <marybono.net>
website.
Complainant avers that Respondent’s principal
intention in registering the domain name <marybono.net> was to
tarnish the Congresswoman’s service mark.
Complainant avers that Respondent sought, in an act of
bad faith, to offer the domain name for sale at an inflated price.
B. Respondent
Respondent contends that Respondent contacted
Complainant, but did not get a response, and that Respondent does not want the
website <marybono.net> and that it was deleted by him last week. Respondent further states that Respondent
would transfer the domain name to Mary Bono (not the fictitious and deceptive
Daphne) but that Respondent can’t do that, as Respondent has no control over
the site, which is in “legal limbo.”
Respondent avers that Complainant’s staff failed to
renew the domain name, and “all of this could have been avoided” if they had.
Respondent declares that Respondent was going to use
the site for political satire during the election year “exercising my First
Amendment rights but have decided not to bother since the current government
has left nothing to satirize–since the Bush administration and the Republican
Party are a total very pathetic and sick joke that have ruined the U.S.A.”
FINDINGS
1. Based upon
the facts and arguments presented to it, the Panel finds that the electronic
Response is sufficient, although it does not conform to ICANN’s Rule 5, which
requires the Response to be in hard copy format.
2. The Response
constitutes Respondent’s explicit consent to transfer the domain name to
Complainant.
3. The Panel
has ordered the transfer of the domain name <marybono.net> to
Complainant, based upon Respondent’s explicit consent, and therefore the Panel
will forego the traditional UDRP analysis.
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 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.
Respondent’s Response consists solely of a series of
e-mails, and thus, is not in compliance with ICANN’S Rule 5, which requires
that the Response shall be submitted in hard copy. Although the Panel is under no obligation to
accept this Response, the Panel has ruled that it will consider such material
as being in the interest of justice, in order to prevent a default, and such
consideration does not prejudice Complainant.
The Panel has further determined that Respondent’s
Response constitutes an explicit consent to transfer the disputed domain name,
that is <marybono.net>.
This explicit Response is an e-mail to the Forum and
copied to Complainant’s attorney dated May 29, 2007, of which the second and
fifth (ultimate) paragraphs are as follows:
So this
will confirm that I don’t want the website marybono.net. It was deleted
by me last week. Although, the site is
being held in some
legal limbo with Network Solutions. I’d transfer it to Mary Bono (not the
fictitious and deceptive Daphne) but can’t do that as I have no con-
trol over
the site. So let me, again, make it clear: I no longer own marybono.net
and don’t want it and if Bono want’s
it–she’s welcome to it.
This is my response.
Because the Panel has determined that the above
Response qualifies as Respondent’s consent to transfer the disputed domain
name, the Panel has decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and orders
the immediate transfer of the <marybono.net> domain name to
Complainant. 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 ruled that Respondent’s Response constitutes an
explicit consent to transfer, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <marybono.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Carol M. Stoner, Esq. Panelist
Dated: June 18, 2007
Click
Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum