WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Atmos Energy Corporation v. Chesterton Holdings LLC
Case No. D2007-1793
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Atmos Energy Corporation, Dallas, Texas, of United States of America, represented by Baker Botts, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Chesterton Holdings LLC, Los Angeles, California, of United States of America, represented by William A. Delgado, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameK.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 4, 2007. On December 4, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to NameK a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On December 7, 2007, NameK transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. 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 December 10, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 30, 2007. The Response was filed with the Center on December 28, 2007.
The Center appointed Jordan S. Weinstein as the sole panelist in this matter on January 24, 2008. 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. Discussion and Findings
Complainant has requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant because the domain name is nearly identical to Complainant’s U.S. Federal Registrations for ATMOSENERGY, containing merely a typographical error and thus constituting “typosquatting,” and because the domain name resolves to a website containing links to sites competitive with Complainant, it contends that Respondent receives “click through” revenue therefrom and thus the website was registered in bad faith. Complainant seeks transfer of the domain name to it.
In response, Respondent fails to address any of Complainant’s substantive assertions but simply consents to transfer of the domain name to Complainant.
Because Respondent consents to a transfer, and because this Panel cannot grant Complainant any relief beyond a transfer, this Panel believes it is unnecessary to make factual findings but instead shall proceed to grant the remedy which Complainant has sought and to which Respondent has consented. See, e.g., Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Refining and Marketing Company v. RareNames WebReg,WIPO Case No. D2006-1336; The Cartoon Network, LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132; Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Easy-Port,WIPO Case No. D2000-0207.
5. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Jordan S. Weinstein
Sole Panelist
Date: February 7, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy