WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
ClassicWeb SL v. The Company / Jos� Truchado
Case No. D2006-0918
1. The Parties
The Complainant is ClassicWeb SL, Madrid, Spain, represented by an internal representative.
The Respondent is The Company / Jos� Truchado, Madrid, Spain.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. (DK).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 18, 2006. On July 20, 2006, the Center transmitted by email to Ascio Technologies Inc. (DK) a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On July 21, 2006, Ascio Technologies Inc. (DK) transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 25, 2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August�14,�2006. The Response was filed with the Center on August 14, 2006.
On August 16, 2006, the Center sent the Complainant an email requesting his comments concerning paragraph 5 of the Respondent’s Response, in view of the fact that in that paragraph the Respondent expressed agreement with the Complainant’s claims. The Complainant did not reply to that email.
The Center appointed Luis H. de Larramendi as the sole panelist in this matter on August 24, 2006. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
- The domain name at issue, , was registered on July 31, 2001.
- On the web page T-shirts bearing the word “Dominios” are being offered for sale.
- The Complainant is the owner of Spanish trademark No. 2325983, DOMINIOS in Class 25, registered on February 5, 2001. The trademark is being used with the sale of T-shirts.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
- The Complainant underscores its ownership of the aforementioned Spanish trademarks and the fact that the Respondent is offering T-shirts bearing a DOMINIOS mark for sale via its web site.
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue.
- On the “” web page it is announced that the domain is for sale for €�100,000. The Respondent has prevented the Complainant from registering the domain name, is clearly disrupting the business of the Complainant by using this domain name and is attempting to attract customers away from the Complainant’s website and creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Respondent
- In paragraph 5 of the Response the Respondent acquiesces in the Complainant’s claims and specifically requests the Panel to “agree to the remedies requested by the Complainant”.
- The Respondent acknowledges that the domain name at issue is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, admits that he has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and further acknowledges that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for a Complaint to be upheld three requirements must be fulfilled, namely:
a) that the contested domain name be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant;
b) that the Respondent have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question;
c) that the domain name have been registered and used in bad faith.
The Respondent has himself acknowledged that these three requirements are fulfilled in this case and has acquiesced in the Complainant’s claims.
As was held in Sanofi-Aventis v. Day Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2004-1075:
Several prior decisions in which the Respondent has consented to transfer the contested domain names conclude that the requirements of Paragraph 4 of the Policy are fulfilled (see eM, Inc. v. Mp3DownLoadCity, WIPO Case No. D2004-0967, Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd. v. Hoang Anh Minh and , WIPO Case No. D2003-0355, Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons Ab, WIPO Case No. D2000-1398. Therefore, considering this consent to a transfer of the domain names and other facts of the case, this Administrative Panel concludes that the requirements of Paragraph 4 of the Policy are fulfilled.
Given that the positions of the two parties with respect to this case are the same, it is appropriate that the Complaint be upheld.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Luis H. de Larramendi
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 7, 2006
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy