WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Russian Standard Bank Joint Stock Company v. Demand Domains, Inc. Case No. D2009-0732 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Russian Standard Bank Joint Stock Company of Moscow, Russian Federation, represented by Dmitry Simonchik, Russian Federation.
The Respondent is Demand Domains, Inc. of United States of America, represented by Christina G. Radocha, 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 4, 2009. On June 4, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 4, 2009, eNom transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 10, 2009, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint/amended Complaint on June 9, 2009. 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” or “UDRP”), 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 June 11, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 1, 2009. The Response was filed with the Center on July 1, 2009.
The Center appointed Charné Le Roux as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 2009. 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.
A Procedural Order was issued by the Panel on July 24, 2009 which is dealt with in more detail in the following paragraph. 4. Factual Background and Decision
The Complainant is a privately held consumer bank in Russia and filed its Complaint based on its registered trade marks for the name RUSSIAN STANDARD and its use of the name Russian Standard Bank. The Complainant indicated in its Complaint grounds for findings, inter alia, that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requested that the Domain Name be transferred to it.
The Respondent indicated in its Response that grounds for refuting the relief sought by the Complainant exists, but that it wished to extend an offer to the Complainant for the immediate transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. Consequently, on July 24, 2009, the Panel issued the following Procedural Order:
“Whereas the Panel has reviewed the case file and, without prejudice to any subsequent findings of fact or law or any decision on the interpretation of any aspect of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the following findings are made:
(i) The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the ‘Center') on June 4, 2009.
(ii) The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 9, 2009, following registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar.
(iii) A Response was filed with the Center on July 1, 2009 by the Respondent.
(iv) Prior to the filing of the Response, the Respondent sent three e-mail communications to the Complainant on June 5, 2009, June 10, 2009 and June 24, 2009 respectively, offering immediate and free transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant.
(v) The Complainant rejected the Respondent's offers, expressing the view that it did not believe in the Respondent's goodwill and that the matter should be resolved by WIPO decision.
(vi) The Complainant did not send a letter to the Respondent notifying it of the Complainant's trade mark rights prior to filing the Complaint.
Whereas the only relief sought by the Complainant in its Complaint is to transfer the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant and the Respondent has indicated that it is willing to do so free of charge.
Therefore, in the spirit of the Policy to provide a quick and effective means of resolving domain name dispute between the parties, the Panel, pursuant to paragraphs 10 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, hereby orders as follows:
(1) The Respondent is provided with an opportunity of 3 days from the date of this order in which to retract (should it wish to do so) its apparent offer of voluntary transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant on the terms previously offered to the Complainant.
(2) Any such retraction (if any) should be communicated to the Center by e-mail in accordance with paragraph 3 (b) of the WIPO Supplemental Rules not later than [date of Order plus 3 days].
(3) In the absence of any such retraction from the Respondent taking place as provided in the aforementioned paragraphs, the Panel would anticipate order the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant on the basis of the Respondent's consent. If a retraction from the Respondent is received, the Panel would anticipate proceeding with a full decision on the merits.”
On July 25, 2009, the Respondent indicated to the Center that it did not wish to retract its offer of free and immediate transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant. Consequently, the Panel does not consider it necessary to make a finding on the merits of the matter but confirms the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant on the basis of the Respondent's consent. 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.
Charné Le Roux
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 3, 2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy