WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Novo Nordisk Health Care AG v. BuyD
Case No. D2007-1210
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Novo Nordisk Health Care AG, Andreasstrasse Zurich, Switzerland, of Switzerland, represented by Eva Borgen, Denmark.
The Respondent is BuyD, Washington, DC, United States of America, represented by Lowrie, Lando & Anastasi, LLP, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name registered with Registration Technologies.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 15, 2007. On August 20, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Registration Technologies a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On August 23, 2007, Registration Technologies transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 28, 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 August 29, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 18, 2007. The Response was filed with the Center on September 18, 2007.
The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on October 5, 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:
- US trademark NOVOSEVEN (word mark) No. 2702083 registered on November 20, 1990 in class 5.
- US trademark NOVOSEVEN (word mark) No. 2702083 registered on April 1, 2003 in class 5.
The Respondent registered the contested domain name on October 26, 2005.
5. Discussion
In line with previous decisions, e.g., Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port,WIPO Case No. D2000-0207, Amgen Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2007-0155, Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Refining and Marketing Company v. RareNames, WebReg,WIPO Case No. D2006-1336, Levantur, S.A. v. RareNames, WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2007-0857, Instituto del Fondo Nacional de la Vivienda para los Trabajadores v. Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc., Demand Domains, Inc.WIPO Case No. D2007-0917 since the Respondent have consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant, the Panel finds that in this case it does not need to 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 who is represented by Counsel, has expressly agreed in the Response 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. Therefore, as held in Amgen Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates WIPO Case No. D2007-0155, “given 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: October 19, 2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy