WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECEISION
Taco Bell Corporation. v. Tango Bella
Case No. D2000-1229
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Taco Bell Corporation, a California corporation, with its principal place of business at 17901 Von Karman Avenue, Irvine, California 92614, USA.
The Respondent is Tango Bella, with an address at 14 Chowpatty View, Chowpatty, SeaFace, Morvi Lane, Bombay, Maharashtra, 400 007, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is "". The registrar is Network Solutions, Inc. of 505 Huntmar Park Drive, Hurndon, Virginia 20170-5139, USA..
3. Procedural History
3.1 The Complaint was received by WIPO by email on September 15, 2000 and by hard copy on September 18, 2000.
3.2 On September 22, 2000 a request for verification of data was issued and on September 28, 2000 the Registrar confirmed that it was the registrar of the domain name in dispute.
3.3 On October 5, 2000 a notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding was transmitted to the Respondent.
3.4 On October 23, 2000 the Center received an email Response followed by the hard copy on October 27, 2000.
3.5 On November 2, 2000 a notification of the appointment of the Administrative Panel was sent to both the Complainant and Respondent by email. The notification informed the parties that the Administrative Panel would consist of a single panelist Mr. Gary Biesty.
3.6 On December 4, 2000 the request by the Panelist for a extension in the rendering of the decision was sent to the parties. No further submissions were received and a decision is due on December 8, 2000.
4. Factual Background
4.1 The Complainant is the proprietor of the trademark TACO BELL, in use since 1964.
4.2 The Complainant has more than 100 trademark registrations for TACO BELL in the United States and elsewhere.
4.3 The domain name "" was registered by the Respondent on April 9, 1998 and unless renewed is due to expire on April 9, 2001.
5. The Parties� Contentions
5.1 The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has sought to register and hold a domain name identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant�s trademark TACO Bell.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the registration and retention of the domain name is in bad faith.
5.2 The Respondent offers no evidence in rebuttal of the Complainant�s assertions. The Respondent�s father and natural guardian has by way of response asserted among other issues that the Respondent is a minor according to Indian Law and that the Respondent has no claim or interest in the domain name.
6. Findings
6.1 The Panel finds that the Respondent was correctly identified in the Network Solutions� Verification as the Registrar of the disputed domain name "".
The Panel also finds the evidence of RK Jhunjhunwala, father and natural guardian of the Respondent, compelling and accepts that as the proprietor of the address where the Respondent resides he is in a position to determine whether the Respondent has a genuine economic interest in the disputed domain name.
6.2 In view of the statement of admission by RK Jhunjhunwala the Panel takes the view that it is unnecessary to consider whether the Complainant has fully discharged the burden of proof required by the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
7. Decision
Accordingly the Panel orders that the Domain name in dispute be transferred to the Complainant.
Gary Biesty
Sole Panelist
December 12, 2000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy