WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
ESAT DIGIFONE LIMITED v. JOHN BUTLER
Case No. D 2000 0601
1. The Parties
The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is ESAT Digifone Limited, a company incorporated in Ireland, having its registered office at 76 Lower Baggot Street in the City of Dublin.
The Respondent is John Butler of 78, Goatstown Road, Dublin Ireland.
2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
The domain names in issue are , , , . The Registrar with which the domain names are registered is The NameIT Corporation.
3. Procedural History
On June 15, 2000 the Complaint was received by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("the Center") in hard copy and complied with the requirements of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Rules") and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Supplemental Rules"). The appropriate fees were paid by the Complainant.
On June 22, 2000 the Center sent an Acknowledgement of Receipt of Complaint to the authorized representative of the Complainant by e-mail. A copy of the said Acknowledgment of Receipt of Complainat was sent at the same time to the Respondent by e-mail.
On June 22, 2000 the Center sent a Request for Registrar Verification to the Registrar. On August 4, 2000 the Registrar responded to the Center and stated that it had received the Complaint sent by the Complainant, confirmed that it is the registrar of the said , , and domain names, confirmed that the Respondent was the current registrant of said domain names, that the Respondent was the person listed as the administrative contact and administrative contact for the said domain names, confirmed that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ( "the Policy") applied to the said domain name registrations, and that all four said domain names were in "active" status as of August 1, 2000.
The Center reviewed the Complaint and was satisfied that it complied with the formal requirements.
On August 8, 2000 the Center sent a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding relating to the said domain names to the Respondent by Post/Courier (with enclosures) and by e-mail (Complaint with attachments). A copy of said Notification was sent to the authorised representative of the Complainant by e-mail. Further copies of said Notification were sent to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") and to the Registrar (Complaint without attachments).
Said Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding inter alia advised the Respondent that the Administrative Proceedings had commenced on August 8, 2000 and that the Respondent was required to submit a Response to the Center on or before August 27, 2000.
On August 8, 2000 the Respondent sent an e-mail to the Center in which he stated that he wished to surrender the said domain names to the Complainant and a copy of said e-mail was sent by the Respondent to the Complainant.
On August 8, 2000 the Center responded to the Respondent and advised him that in order to terminate these Administrative Proceedings the Center would require a formal request in writing (e-mail and hard copy) from the Complainant. The Respondent was advised to contact the Complainant in this regard.
No such formal request was received by the Center.
The Respondent failed to submit a Response and on August 29, 2000 the Center sent a Notification of Respondent Default to the Respondent advising the Respondent that the consequences of said default included inter alia that the Center would proceed to appoint a single member Administrative Panel.
On September 1, 2000 the Center appointed James Bridgeman as Administrative Panel in these proceedings after having received a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality from the said James Bridgeman. On the same date, the case file was transferred to the Administrative Panel.
In the view of the Administrative Panel, the proper procedures were followed and this Administrative Panel was properly constituted.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a major supplier of mobile telephony services in the Irish market. There is no relevant information submitted relating to the Respondent.
5. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant
In its submissions the Complainant has inter alia requested that the said domain names be transferred to the Complainant.
B. Respondent
There was no formal Response filed by the Respondent, however in his e-mail to the Center on August 8, 2000 the Respondent consented to the Complainants request and he also requested that said domain names be transferred to the Complainant.
6. Discussion and Findings
Since there is no issue between the Parties, this Administrative Panel will facilitate the Parties in their requests to have the said domain names transferred to the Complainant.
7. Decision
Since both Parties have requested that the said domain names be transferred to the Respondent it is the decision of this Administrative Panel that said domain names , , , should be transferred to the Complainant.
James Bridgeman
Presiding Panelist
Date: 13 September 2000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy