WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Deutsche Bank AG v. Carl Seigler
Case No. D 2000-0984
1. The Parties
Complainant: Deutsche Bank AG
Taunusanlage 12,
D-60325 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
Respondent: Carl Seigler
104 Candlewick
Panama City, FL 32405
USA
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
Domain Name: ""
Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was received by WIPO by email on August 10, 2000. The Complaint was corrected by amendment on August 25, 2000. WIPO has verified that the Complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and that payment was properly made. The Administrative Panel ("the Panel") is satisfied that this is the case.
The Complaint was properly notified in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 2(a). The Registrar has confirmed that "" ("the Domain Name") was registered through Network Solutions Inc. and that Carl Seigler ("the Respondent") is the current registrant. The Registrar has further confirmed that the Policy is applicable to the Domain Name.
On August 25, 2000, WIPO notified the Respondent of the Complaint in the required manner and informed the Respondent inter alia that the last day for sending his Response to the Complainant and to WIPO was September 13, 2000. On the same day the Respondent replied by email to the effect that he was not contesting the case and stated that on two occasions previously he had completed and dispatched the paperwork necessary to cancel the Domain Name, but to no avail. He said that his intent had been "to relinquish the name back to [the Respondent]" and he asked for WIPO�s assistance.
WIPO forwarded the Respondent�s email to the Complainant. The Complainant indicated to WIPO on October 12, 2000, that it wished the administrative procedure to continue, because, for whatever reason, any attempts which the Respondent claimed he had made to relinquish the Domain Name to the Complainant had failed. The Complainant evidently believed that, under the particular circumstances of this case, this procedure represented the effective solution for ensuring that the expressed intentions of the parties are now carried through to the desired conclusion.
On October 13, 2000, the Respondent emailed the Complainant�s lawyer stating inter alia that he was "agreeable for WIPO to cancel the name as quickly as possible for [the Complainant�s] benefit".
The Panel was properly constituted. The undersigned Panelist submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.
No further submissions were received by WIPO or the Panel.
4. Factual Background
The facts are not disputed. The Domain Name is in all essential respects the name of the Complainant, being a name in which the Complainant has registered and unregistered rights. The Respondent does not claim any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The parties have agreed that the Domain Name should be transferred to the Complainant and, according to the Respondent, it is only as a result of a failure of communication between him and the Registrar that the Domain Name is still registered in the Respondent's name. It has been agreed that the Panel should give effect to that agreement.
5. Parties� Contentions
The Complainant contends that the circumstances warrant a decision in its favour under all three heads of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
The Respondent does not contest the matter and agrees that the Domain Name be relinquished in favour of the Complainant. The Panel understands this to mean that the Respondent agrees to its transfer to the Complainant.
6. Discussion and Findings
In light of the aforementioned agreement, it is not necessary that the Panel elaborate further. However, had the Panel been required to make substantive findings, the Panel would have found that in the circumstances of this case, namely (a) the fact that the Domain Name is identical to the name of the Complainant (b) the fact that the Domain Name is a distinctive and unique name that can only refer to the Complainant and (c) all other facts, including the concession by the Respondent that the Domain Name ought to be relinquished in favour of the Complainant, the Complaint succeeds under all the heads of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
7. Decision
In the result, the Panel directs that the Domain Name, "", be transferred to the Complainant.
Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 4, 2000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy