WIPO Case and Neglect of Merit

8/8/2019 WIPO Case and Neglect of Merit

1/5

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Barnie's II, Inc. v. RareNames, WebReg

Claim Number: FA0707001031519

PARTIES

Complainant is Barnie's II, Inc. (Complainant), represented by Collin B.

Foulds, ofGray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., 500 IDS Center, 80South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Respondent is RareNames,

WebReg (Respondent), represented by Ann Lamport Hammitte,One Main

Street, Cambridge, MA 02142.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is , registered with Domaindiscover.

PANEL


2/5

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially

and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as

Panelist in this proceeding.

Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) is the Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum

electronically on July 11, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hardcopy of the Complaint on July 18, 2007.

On July 21, 2007, Domaindiscover confirmed by e-mail to the National

Arbitration Forum that the domain name is registered withDomaindiscover and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.

Domaindiscover has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domaindiscover

registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes

brought by third parties in accordance with ICANNs Uniform Domain NameDispute Resolution Policy (the Policy).

On July 23, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of

Administrative Proceeding (the Commencement Notification), setting adeadline of August 13, 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 Respondents registration as technical, administrative andbilling contacts, and to [email protected] by e-mail.

A timely electronic copy of the Response was received and determined to be

complete on August 14, 2007. However, a hard copy of the Response wasreceived after the deadline for response. Therefore, the Forum does not considerthis Response to be in compliance with ICANN Rule 5(a).


3/5

On August 17, 2007, pursuant to Complainants request to have the dispute

decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed

Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) as Panelist.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

Respondent did not submit a timely hard copy of its Response in accordance with

ICANN Rule 5. Its failure so to do is irrelevant in light of its stipulation to

transfer to Complainant the disputed domain name (see infra).

Complainant charges that the disputed domain name falls within the Policy

requirements and must be transferred to it. Although Respondent does not agree

that it acted in bad faith by registering and using the disputed domain name, it hasstipulated that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.

In the recent matter ofLevantur, S.A. v. RareNames WebReg, D2007-0857 (WIPO

July 30, 2007), the Panelist said:

Previous panels have held that a genuine unilateral consent

to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an

immediate order for transfer without consideration of theelements of paragraph 4(a) of the Rules. Where theComplainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain

name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, then

pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer.

Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-

0207, The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132 and Valero Energy

Corporation, Valero Refining and Marketing Company v.RareNames WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2006-1336.

And, inAmerican International Group, Inc. v. RareNames WebReg, FA 648253(Nat. Arb. Forum April 6, 2006), the Panelist concluded:


4/5

When a respondent has agreed to comply with the

complainants request, the panel may decide to forego the

traditional UDRP analysis and summarily order the transferof the domain names. See Boehringer Ingelheim Intl

GmbH v. Modern Ltd. Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625

(Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domainname 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 recognizethe 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

Complainants request, the Panel felt it to be expedient andjudicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order

the transfer of the domain names.);see also Mary Frances Accessories, Inc. v. Shoe Salon, FA 528458 (Nat. Arb.

Forum Sept. 6, 2005);see also Dame Elizabeth Taylor, The

Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company & InterplanetProductions Limited v. K. Myers, FA0508000547795 (Nat.

Arb. Forum Oct. 18, 2005).

This Panelist agrees with the reasoning and conclusions of the above matters, and,

further, in the interest of arbitral economy for all involved, the disputed domain

name will be transferred to Complainant.

DECISION

By virtue of Respondents stipulation to transfer the disputed domain name, the

Panel concludes that relief shall beGRANTED

.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name be

TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.


5/5

JUDGE IRVING H. PERLUSS (RETIRED)

Dated: January 6, 2011

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Hereto return to our Home Page
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions.asphttp://domains.adrforum.com/http://domains.adrforum.com/http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions.asphttp://domains.adrforum.com/

Documents

WIPO Case and Neglect of Merit