WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Infoglobo Comunica��es S.A. v. German Kammerath
Case No. D2008-0565
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Infoglobo Comunica��es S.A., Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, of Brazil, represented by Patricia Peck Pinheiro, Brazil.
The Respondent is German Kammerath, Cordoba, Argentina.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names are registered with Dotster, Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 11, 2008. On April 11, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Dotster, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On April 15, 2008, Dotster, Inc., 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 April 30, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 20, 2008. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 21, 2008.
The Center appointed Rodrigo Velasco Santelices as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 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. Factual Background
The Complainant INFOGLOBO is a well-known Brazilian telecommunications and journalism holding company which, among its many different business is the owner of the newspapers “O Globo, Extra”, “Di�rio de S�o Paulo” and “Expresso, the site Globo Online” and the Agency “O Globo”. Since the foundation of the newspaper “O Globo”, in 1925, the Complainant has continually used the trademark O GLOBO.
The Complainant is currently the trademark owner of the following trademarks registered before the Brasilian Trademark Office amongst others. Trademark Reg. No. 002612593, O GLOBO; Trademark Reg. No. 81938015 O GLOBO NA LITERATURA; Trademark Reg. No. 819382981O GLOBO; Trademark Reg. No. 820366897 O GLOBO NA COPA.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, on May 27, 2008, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center received and email from Mr. German Kammerath, the respondent, stating the following “with respect to your claim, and considering what has been evaluated by our legal department, we have decided to concede it”, and requesting information on how to go about it.
5. Discussion and Findings
The remedy requested in the Complaint is that the disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainant. In an email received by the WIPO Arbitration and mediation Center and forwarded to this panelist on May 27, 2008, the respondent (who appears to have obtained legal advice) has clearly stated its intention to transfer the disputed domain names to Complainant.
This Panel considers that pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules, amongst the general powers of the panelist, is to conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and the Rules and ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.
The Panel considers that the most appropriate and expeditious manner to proceed given the circumstances of this particular case would be to concede to the request of the Respondent and transfer the domain names to the Complainant, as mentioned in the decision The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2005-1132 and decision Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Refining and Marketing Company v. Rarenames, WebReg,WIPO Case No. D2006-1336.
Although in this case there is no formal documentation the parties have agreed to a formal settlement, under the Rules 10 and 12, the Panel has the authority to permit the parties time to submit confirmation that they have agreed to a settlement. However, such procedure would just delay this proceeding and impose unnecessary cost and since there is no evidence to suggest that the respondent’s stated intention to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant is not genuine., consequently the best course is to enter an order granting the relief requested by the Complainant so that the transfer may occur without further delay.
6. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons the Panel orders that the domain names, be transferred to the Complainant.
Rodrigo Velasco Santelices
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 10, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy