Masonite International Corporation and Masonite Corporation v. Pedro Sinchi / Masonite Protections
Claim Number: FA1403001548507
Complainant is Masonite International Corporation and Masonite Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph W. Berenato III of Berenato & White, LLC, Maryland, USA. Respondent is Pedro Sinchi / Masonite Protections (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <masoniteplastic.com>, registered with Register.com, 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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 13, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 13, 2014.
On March 17, 2014, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <masoniteplastic.com> domain name is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com, 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 19, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 8, 2014 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@masoniteplastic.com. Also on March 19, 2014, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 11, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <masoniteplastic.com> domain name, the domain name at issue, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MASONITE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.
3. Respondent registered and used the domain name at issue in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, on March 18, 2014, Respondent sent an email to the Forum stating: “My account was cancelled all ready because I received a letter saying that I’m using some ones mame.” On March 19, 2014, Respondent sent a second email to the Forum stating: “could you tell me how I can end this .like I said I cancel everything in the Internet few months ago I’m not using any more…since I find out that Im using some one’s name … so could you please tell me How I can end this issue.”
Based upon the above quoted communications from Respondent to the Forum, the Panel finds that Respondent consents to transfer the <masoniteplastic.com> domain name to Complainant. As a result, the Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel will forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <masoniteplastic.com> 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 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.”).
The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <masoniteplastic.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: April 13, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page