SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby's v.
Irfan Yonac
Claim Number: FA0705000990567
PARTIES
Complainant is SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby's, (“Complainant”) represented by Sujata
Chaudhri, of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., 1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036-6799. Respondent is Irfan Yonac, (“Respondent”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sothebysdiamonds.us>, registered
with Melbourne
It Ltd.
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.
R. Glen Ayers, Jr. as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
(the “Forum”) electronically on May 21, 2007;
the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 23, 2007.
On May 22, 2007, Melbourne It Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the
Forum that the domain name <sothebysdiamonds.us> is registered
with Melbourne It Ltd and that Respondent
is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne It Ltd has verified that Respondent
is bound by the Melbourne It Ltd
registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes
brought by third parties in accordance with the U. S. Department of Commerce’s
usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On May 25, 2007, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of June 14, 2007 by which Respondent could
file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance
with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the
“Rules”).
A timely Response was received on June
14, 2007. The Response was
deficient under usDRP Rule 5, as it was not received in hard copy.
Nevertheless, the Response has been considered.
On June 21, 2007, pursuant to
Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed R. Glen Ayers, Jr. as
Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant’s pleadings include more than adequate evidence and
information to satisfy Complainant’s obligation to establish a prima facie case under each of the
prongs of the UDRP, including: (1) that
Complainant holds an existing, registered trademark and that Respondent has
registered a confusingly similar or identical domain name; (2) that Respondent has
no rights in the name; (3) and that Respondent’s acts can be considered to have
been in bad faith.
B. Respondent
In a non-conforming Response, which has been considered by the
Panelist, Respondent has stated that he has cancelled the domain.
C. Additional Submissions
There were no additional submissions.
FINDINGS
Respondent does not contest any of
Complainant’s allegations regarding the <sothebysdiamonds.us> domain
name. Rather, Respondent has
consented to judgment in favor of Complainant and authorized the immediate
transfer of the subject domain name. In
fact, Respondent contends that he has attempted to cancel the subject domain
name. The Panelist finds that in
a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has consented to the transfer of
the disputed domain name, the Panelist will forego the traditional usDRP
analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name. 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 [UDRP].”); 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 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent
as applicable in rendering its decision.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The mark and domain name are confusing
similar.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interest in the domain name.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The registration and use were in bad faith.
DECISION
Given Respondent’s Response, and the prima facie case established by
Complainant, the domain name <sothebysdiamonds.us>
is ordered transferred to Complainant.
R. Glen Ayers, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
July 2, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum