The Complainant is DB Corp. Ltd of Gujarat, India, represented by Abhishek Malhotra, India.
The Respondent is Rashtramitra Dnyaneshwar Thombre of Mumbai, Maharashtra, India / Whois Agent LiquidNet US LLC of Coral Springs, Florida, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with LiquidNet Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 8, 2011. On August 8, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. The Center sent several follow-up reminders to the Registrar on August 11, 12 and 15, 2011 in relation to its request for registrar verification. On August 17, 2011, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 6, 2011.
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 September 9, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 29, 2011. The Response was filed with the Center on September 29, 2011.
The Response transmitted by e-mail to the Center on September 29, 2011 stated that the Respondent consented to the remedy of transfer of the disputed domain name requested by the Complainant. The Center advised the parties by e-mail of September 29, 2011 that the Complainant might wish to submit a request for suspension of the proceeding during which time the parties could explore a settlement. By e-mail of October 8, 2011, the Complainant (through its counsel) advised the Center that it wished to proceed with the administrative proceeding, and the Center thereupon appointed the Panel.
The Center appointed Amarjit Singh as the sole panelist in this matter on October 31, 2011. 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 this matter, the Complainant has requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to it in accordance with paragraph 4 (i) of the Policy. The Respondent consents to the remedy sought by the Complainant and has agreed to transfer the disputed domain name without need for a decision being rendered by the Panel.
The panel held in The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132.
“This Panel considers that a genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. 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).”
In Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port.WIPO Case No. D2000-0207), the panel held:
“Because Respondent has consented to the relief requested by Complainant, it is not necessary to review the facts supporting the claim. I am left to decide the appropriate procedure to conclude the case in a situation not directly addressed by the Rules. Several provisions provide guidance. Rule 10(a) gives the panel the discretion to conduct the proceeding in such manner as it deems appropriate under the Policy and the Rules. Rule 10(c) requires the Panel to "ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition." Rule 12 permits the Panel to require further statements from the parties. Rule 17 requires the Panel to terminate the proceeding when the parties have agreed to a settlement.
Here, although Respondent has consented to the requested relief, the parties have not agreed to a formal settlement and terminating the proceeding would not effect the parties’ intent. Under Rules 10 and 12, the Panel appears to have authority to delay the decision and permit the parties time to submit confirmation that they have agreed to a settlement. That procedure, however, would delay this proceeding and impose unnecessary cost on both the parties and WIPO. Under the circumstances, I believe the better course is to enter an order granting the relief requested by the Complainant so that the transfer may occur without further delay.”
This Panel agrees with the decisions in the above-mentioned cases and holds that the disputed domain name can be transferred to the Complainant without determination of the elements of paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy. 5. Decision
For the foregoing reason, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Amarjit Singh
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 9, 2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy