WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
DESOTEC N.V. v. JACOBI CARBONS AB
Case No. D2000-1398
1. The Parties
The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is DESOTEC N.V., having its principal place of business at Regenbeekstraat, 44, B-8800 Roeselaere, Belgium ("Complainant"), represented by Bureau Gevers, Holidaystraat, 5, B-1831 Diegem, Belgium.
The Respondent is JACOBI CARBONS AB, having its principal place of business at Stenkullavagen 9, S-Stockholm 11265, Sweden ("Respondent").
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
This dispute concerns the domain name ("Domain Name") registered with Network Solutions, Inc., Virginia, USA ("Network Solutions" or "Registrar").
3. Procedural History
A complaint ("Complaint") pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy implemented by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") on October 24, 1999 ("Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy implemented by ICANN on the same date ("Rules") and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, in effect as of December 1, 1999 ("Supplemental Rules") was submitted to the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center ("WIPO Center") on October 17, 2000 by e-mail and was received on October 20, 2000 in hardcopy. On October 19, 2000, the WIPO Center sent an acknowledgement of Receipt of the Complaint to Complainant.
On November 2, 2000, a Request for Registrar Verification was transmitted to the Registrar which confirmed by Verification Response of November 7, 2000 that the disputed Domain Name was registered with Network Solutions and that Respondent was the current registrant.
The Panel independently determines that the Complaint is in formal compliance with the applicable requirements.
No formal deficiencies having been recorded, a Notification of the Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding was sent to Respondent on November 9, 2000, setting a deadline of November 28, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint.
On November 16, 2000, Respondent confirmed to the WIPO Center by e-mail the receipt of the Notification of the Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding. Furthermore, Respondent confirmed that it did not object to a transfer of the Domain Name to Complainant.
The WIPO Center acknowledged receipt of the e-mail on November 21, 2000 and drew Respondent's attention to the following points:
- It is not in the general powers of the WIPO Center to issue an order transferring a specific domain name. In the ICANN Procedure, the order to transfer a disputed domain name to a complainant would be issued solely by the Administrative Panel appointed in the specific case.
- If Complainant and Respondent had settled the case, the WIPO Center would request Complainant to submit a request to the WIPO Center to suspend or terminate the proceeding.
On November 23, 2000, Respondent assured by e-mail that a settlement in the above-referenced dispute had not taken place, but reflected that it had no objections to the administrative panel deciding in Complainant's favor.
On November 30, 2000, having received no formal Response by Respondent, the WIPO Center transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 7, 2000, in view of Complainant's designation of a sole panelist, the WIPO Center invited Dr. Bernhard F. Meyer-Hauser to serve as panelist in this case and transmitted to him a Statement of Acceptance and Request for Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.
Having received Dr. Meyer-Hauser's Statement on December 12, 2000, the WIPO Center transmitted to the parties a Notification of Appointment of Administrative Panel and Projected Decision Date, in which Dr. Meyer-Hauser was formally appointed as the Sole Panelist. The projected decision date was December 25, 2000. The Administrative Panel finds that it was properly constituted and appointed in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.
4. Factual Background
Complainant is a Belgian company. It is a leading European manufacturer and supplier of activated carbon and has been active in this market since 1990 under the name DESOTEC. Complainant is one of the big producers of carbon products around the world. At the moment Complainant is the holder of a Benelux trademark application No. 970252 covering goods and services of the classes 1, 11 and 40, filed with the Benelux Trademark Office on July 31, 2000.
The Domain Name was registered by Respondent on June 25, 2000.
5. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name, and that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
In particular, Complainant's application for registration of a trademark which is identical to the Domain Name is covered by the Policy: Art. 4(a)(i) does not expressly limit the application of the Policy to a registered trademark. It is therefore open to conclude that the Policy is applicable to unregistered trademarks as well (cf. WIPO Case No. D2000-0050 - "").
B. Respondent
Respondent has not reacted to the Complaint within the time period set by the WIPO Center and consequently is in default. Under these circumstances, all allegations contained in the Complaint are deemed to be correct to the extent not contradicted by any evidence or documents on file.
Furthermore, Respondent agreed to the transfer of the Domain Name to Complainant in two e-mails to the WIPO Center of November 16 and 23, 2000.
6. Discussion and Findings
Complainant's assertion that the conditions under Art. 4(a) of the Policy are fulfilled in this case has not been disputed by Respondent. To the contrary, Mr. Anders Skeini, President of Respondent, has sent an e-mail to the WIPO Center on November 16, 2000 with the following content:
"Dear Sirs,
Confirm receipt of WIPO Case No. D2000-1398 and wish to confirm what we have advised the complainant on two occasions, both verbally and in writing, that we have no objections to having the domain name transferred to them.
You may instruct Network Solutions to proceed with transfer."
Considering this consent to a transfer of the Domain Name and other facts of the case, this Administrative Panel concludes that the three requirements of Art. 4(a) of the Policy are fulfilled (see Deutsche Bank v. Carl Siegler, Case No. D2000-0984; Juventus F.C. S.p.a. v. Sergio Brangança, Case No. D2000-1466).
7. Decision
In light of the above, this Administrative Panel decides that the domain name shall be transferred to Complainant.
Dr. Bernhard F. Meyer-Hauser
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 21, 2000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy