National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

Pulitzer Newspapers, Inc. v. Internet Revenue Services, Inc.

Claim Number: FA0606000740324

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Pulitzer Newspapers, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Dana M. Craig of Lane & Waterman, LLP, 224 18th Street, Suite 500, Rock Island, IL, 61201.  Respondent is Internet Revenue Services, Inc. (“Respondent”), represented by Robert C. Faber of Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb & Soffen, LLP, 1180 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036.

 

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <flagstafflives.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of his or her knowledge 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 June 27, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint June 29, 2006.

 

On July 10, 2006, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <flagstafflives.com> domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Moniker Online Services, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, 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 July 13, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 2, 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@flagstafflives.com by e-mail.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 2, 2006.

 

On August 7, 2006, 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.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A.     Complainant makes the following allegations in this proceeding :

1.      Respondent registered a domain name, <flagstafflives.com> that is identical to or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has protected rights.

2.      Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name that contains Complainant’s protected mark.

3.      Respondent acted in bad faith in registering and holding the domain name in issue and in transferring it to Respondent.

 

B.     Respondent makes the following points in response:

1.      Respondent does not address the issue of confusing similarity.

2.      Respondent concedes that it “does not now and never has claimed” rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name in issue.

3.      Respondent received the domain name registration without consent of Respondent.

4.      Respondent consents to the transfer the domain name to Complainant.

 

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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the 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.

 

FINDINGS

 

Complainant made an offer of extrinsic evidence in this proceeding in order to satisfy the burden of proof.  It is not necessary for the Panel to determine if Complainant’s showing satisfied Complainant’s burden in view of Respondent’s consent to the transfer.

 

Respondent provided a Response asserting that it is not the owner of the domain name and has no interest in the domain name.  Respondent also claims that the domain name registration for the disputed domain name was transferred to Respondent without Respondent’s consent, and Respondent has no control over the domain name. 

 

Respondent does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the <flagstafflives.com> domain name. 

 

The Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has admitted that it does not have a present or future interest in the disputed domain name and has not contested Complainant’s assertions, that Respondent’s consent to transfer of the disputed domain name negates the need to make a traditional UDRP analysis.

 

The Panel finds that the domain name should be transferred.  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.”). 

 

DECISION

It is therefore ORDERED that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <flagstafflives.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

                             Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
                                        Dated: August 21, 2006.

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum