World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Mina Nabil / Project Rock Shop
Claim Number: FA1903001835201
Complainant is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew C. Winterroth of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Connecticut, USA. Respondent is Mina Nabil / Project Rock Shop (“Respondent”), Italy.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <projectrock.shop>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc..
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 21, 2019; the Forum received payment on March 21, 2019.
On March 21, 2019, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <projectrock.shop> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 March 26, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 15, 2019 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@projectrock.shop. Also on March 26, 2019, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send an e-mail to the Forum, see below.
On April 18, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is a publically traded, world-leading integrated media organization and recognized leader in global entertainment for its Monday Night RAW and Friday Night SMACKDOWN programming. In addition, Complainant owns a portfolio of businesses that create and deliver original content 52 weeks a year to a global audience. It is committed to family-friendly content across all of its platforms including television programming, pay-per-view, digital media and publishing. Its programming is broadcast in more than 145 countries in 30 languages, and reaches more than 500 million homes worldwide. Complainant has rights in the THE ROCK and PROJECT ROCK marks based upon registration, respectively, in the United States in 2001 and in the European Union in January 2018.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark because it wholly incorporates the PROJECT ROCK mark, and a portion of the THE ROCK mark, with the addition of the “.shop” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s marks and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to merchandise counterfeit goods infringing on Complainant’s intellectual property.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain name where it sells counterfeit goods. Finally, Respondent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s PROJECT ROCK mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. It its e-mail to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part (sic): “I’m agree to transfer the domain to WWE …”.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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.
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."
In the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. 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 Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (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.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <projectrock.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: April 19, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page