The Complainant is Monster Energy Company of California, United States of America represented by Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is AVENTICO Online Services of Muenster, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 31, 2013. On January 31, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 1, 2013, the Registrar 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 February 4, 2013 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 amended Complaint on February 5, 2013.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 February 6, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 26, 2013. An informal email communication was received by the Respondent on February 25, 2013. The Center received a further submission from the Complainant by email on February 27, 2013 and a further submission from the Respondent by email on February 28, 2013.
The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on March 7, 2013. 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 owns several trademark registrations worldwide for MONSTER ENERGY and is in the business of designing, creating, developing, marketing and selling beverages since as early as April, 2002.
The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name on October 19, 2012. 5. Discussion
The Respondent has communicated to the Center its intention to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Respondent’s email communications dated February 25 and February 28, 2013, expressly state that the Respondent has consented to the transfer of said domain name. Even if these emails do not constitute a proper Response under the Policy, they do clearly show the Respondent’s intention to transfer the disputed domain name.
The Center has suggested a suspension of this procedure to explore a settlement, but the Complainant has not been interested in negotiating a settlement so far.
The spirit of the Policy is to solve, in a simple, rapid and certain manner, disputes regarding abusive domain name registration. In the present case, the Respondent has consistently expressed its intention to transmit the disputed domain name to the Complainant. Therefore, there is no controversy over the ownership of the disputed domain name, because there are no contending claims. The Respondent has requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
In Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207, the panel decided to transfer the domain name to the complainant, without reviewing the facts supporting the claim, because the Respondent had consented to the transfer.
In Infonxx.Inc v. Lou Kerner, WildS,WIPO Case No. D2008-0434, the panel considered “that a genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a bais for an orde for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements.” (Citing, in turn, The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132, where the panel decided that it could proceed immediately to make a transfer, pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules, because the complainant sought the transfer of the domain name and the respondent consented to it).
Therefore, and considering that the Respondent has expressed its intention to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant, the Panel has decided that decision that is closest to the spirit of the Policy is to transfer the disputed domain name without delay. 6. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Kiyoshi Tsuru
Sole Panelist
Date: March 21, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy