WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Instituto del Fondo Nacional de la Vivienda para los Trabajadores v. Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc., Demand Domains, Inc.
Case No. D2007-0917
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Instituto del Fondo Nacional de la Vivienda para los Trabajadores, Mexico D.F., Mexico, Mexico, represented by Alegria, Mendez & Fernandez Wong, Mexico.
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc., Bellevue, Washington, United States of America; and Demand Domains, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, United States of America, represented by Darby & Darby, PC, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 21, 2007 listing Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc. as Respondent. On June 22, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On June 25 and 27, 2007, eNom transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Demand Domains, Inc. is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center conveying the registrant information, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on July 17, 2007. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 23, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 12, 2007. The Response was filed with the Center on August 8, 2007, and Supplemental filing was filed by the Complainant on August 14, 2007 and by the Respondent on August 21, 2007.
The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on August 27, 2007. 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 Complainant is the owner inter alia, of the following trademarks:
- Mexican trademark INFONAVIT (word mark) No. 531,768 registered on September 24, 1996 in class 36.
- Mexican trademark INFONAVIT (word mark) No. 531,769 registered on September 24, 1996 in class 37.
- Mexican trademark INFONAVIT (word and design mark) No. 462,315 registered on June 1, 1994 in class 36.
The Respondent registered the contested domain name on September 16, 2002.
5. Discussion
In line with previous decisions, e.g., Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port,WIPO Case No. D2000-0207, and Amgen Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2007-0155, the Respondent having consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant, the Panel need not assess the facts supporting the claim. Paragraph 10(a) of the Rules allows the Panel to use discretion in conducting the proceeding in such manner as it deems appropriate under the Policy and the Rules. Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules requires the Panel to “ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition”.
The Respondent in this proceeding has agreed to transfer – without admitting to the elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy – the disputed domain name to the Complainant, upon order of the Panel. Here, as in Amgen Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, “[g]iven Respondent’s consent to transfer, this Panel deems it appropriate to grant the request to transfer under Rule 10. No further consideration or discussion of the elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is deemed necessary”.
6. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Luca Barbero
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 12, 2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy