WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Michel Simond Developpement SAS v. Maltuzi LLC Case No. D2008-0963 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Michel Simond Developpement SAS, of La Roche Sur Foron, France, represented by Cabinet Verniau Selarl, France.
The Respondent is Maltuzi LLC, of Mountain View, United States of America, represented by Willenken Wilson Loh & Lieb, LLP, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name was registered with NameK at the time when the Complaint was filed and is now registered with Ovh. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 25, 2008. On June 27, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to NameK a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 27, 2008, 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 July 17, 2008. The proceeding was suspended on July 23, 2008 and subsequently re-instituted on October 7, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 21, 2008. The Response was filed with the Center on October 20, 2008.
The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on November 14, 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
In the present case the Complainant has requested the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant and the Respondent has agreed to the transfer both during the negotiations between the parties and in its Response to the Complaint.
The negotiations between the parties took place while the proceeding was suspended.
During the negotiations the disputed domain name was trasferred to another Registrar - apparently due to some misunderstanding by the Registrar and the parties regarding Rule 8(b) of the UDRP - and the Administrative, Billing and Technical contacts are now in the name of the Complainant, but the disputed domain name is still in the name of the Respondent.
Paragraph 10 of the Rules provides as General Powers of the Panel that (a) the Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such a manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and the Rules and (c) the Panel shall ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.
The Panel, on the basis of the Respondent's consent to the transfer of the disputed domain name and following the precedent of Williams-Sonoma, Inc v. EZ-Port,WIPO Case No. D2000-2007, considers it appropriate to grant the requested transfer of the disputed domain name without the need of making findings under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 5. 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.
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 28, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy