WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Fiere Internazionali di Bologna S.p.A v. Costa del Sole Hotels Scarl Case No. D2009-1224 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Fiere Internazionali di Bologna S.p.A., Bologna, Italy, represented by Dr. Modiano & Associati S.p.A., Italy.
The Respondent is Costa del Sole Hotels Scarl, Cervia, Italy. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed Domain Name is registered with Tucows Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 15, 2009. On September 16, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to Tucows Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed Domain Name. On September 16, 2009, Tucows 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” 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 September 21, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 11, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 12, 2009.
The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on October 21, 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.
The Respondent addressed to the Center and to the Complainant an email on October 26, 2009, communicating its unilateral consent to the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant. The Center acknowledged receipt of the email communication and transmitted it to the Panel on October 27, 2009.
In light of the apparent consent to the remedy sought by the Complainant in this case, the Panel instructed the Center on October 30, 2009, to request the Complainant to submit any comments on the issue and the Center addressed to the Parties a communication inviting the Complainant to send any comments by November 4, 2009, otherwise the Panel would proceed to render its decision on the basis of the available record. On November 3, 2009, the Complainant addressed a communication to the Center indicating that, in light of the communication of the Respondent acknowledging the Complainant's rights in the Domain Name, the Complainant “would expect the Panel to issue a decision (also evidencing the above) that the contested domain name be transferred to Complainant”. The mentioned communication from the Complainant was acknowledged and transmitted to the Panel on November 3, 2009. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is Fiere Internazionali di Bologna S.p.A. (in short, BolognaFiere S.p.A.), a company existing under Italian law and today one of Europe's leading exhibitions centers.
The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations consisting in the sign BOLOGNA FIERE such as the Italian trademark No 653452, first filed on April 22, 1992 in class 42; the Community Trademark No 367672, registered on January 7, 1999 in classes 35, 41, 42; the International trademark No 755854, registered on March 12, 2001, in classes 35, 41, 42.
The Complainant is also the owner of a number of domain names including the sign “Bologna Fiere” and also the variation “Fiera Bologna”, such as the domain names , registered on July 25, 1996, , registered on July 16, 2006 and , registered on May 16, 2007.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name on August 6, 2008. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits a detailed Complaint to the effect that all elements of paragraph 4 of the Policy are duly dealt with. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions submitting a formal Response, but addressed an informal communication a few days after the Panel Appointment indicating its unilateral consent to the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings
It has been repeatedly stated that, when a unilateral and unambiguous consent is submitted by the respondent on the remedy sought by the complainant, a panel may at its discretion order the transfer or the cancellation of the domain name on that basis alone without addressing the merits.
In the case at hand, the Panel finds that the unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without having to consider the elements of paragraph 4(a). This Panel finds this option the most suitable in order to grant due expediency to the administrative proceeding according to paragraph 10 of the Rules.
As stated in Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Refining and Marketing Company v. RareNames, WebReg,WIPO Case No. D2006-1336 “Where the Complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, then pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer. This is clearly the most expeditious course (see Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207)”. See also; Nutri/System, IHPC, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-0864; and KBC Group N.V. and KBC Bank N.V. v. Bank Dir, Bankgroup, WIPO Case No. D2008-0446. 7. 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.
Luca Barbero
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 5, 2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy