The Complainant is Anadarko Petroleum Corporation of Houston, Texas, United States of America (the “USA”), represented by Adams and Reese LLP, USA.
The Respondent is Moniker Privacy Services of Portland, Oregon, USA / Domain Administrator, Portmedia, Inc. of Pompano Beach, Florida, USA, represented by ESQ, P. C., USA1. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 12, 2013. On April 15, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. After the Center sent several reminders by email to the Registrar, on May 15, 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 Complainant on May 17, 2013 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 17, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 27, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 16, 2013. On May 30, 2013, Respondent informed the Center about the identity of its authorized representative. The Response was filed with the Center on June 17, 2013, indicating Respondent’s willingness to transfer the disputed domain name.
On June 18, 2013, the parties informed the Center by email, that they were in the process of settling the proceedings and submitted a joint signed suspension request to the Center. On June 19, 2013, the Center suspended the proceedings until July 18, 2013. After the Center sent several reminders to the parties by email, Complainant requested the re-institution of the proceedings on July 26, 2013. The Center re-instituted the proceedings on July 26, 2013.
The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on August 19, 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
Complainant is the owner of the mark ANADARKO and ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION for use in connection with diverse goods and services, including oil and gas exploration, drilling and production, insurance and financial services in the field of industrial leasing and purchasing, computer, science and legal services, and lubricants, crude oil and natural case, building construction and repair services, advertising and business services and transportation and storage services.
Complainant owns US Service Mark Registration No. 1,435,026 for the mark ANADARKO (stylized), registered March 31, 1987 and US Service Mark Registration No. 3,587,176 for the mark ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION (stylized), registered March 10, 2009.
Complainant has owned and operated an Internet website under the domain name since 1994.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 8, 2003 with Moniker Privacy Services, Inc. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to Complainant’s registered trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant contends that Respondent is trading on the goodwill in Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain name resolves to a website providing sponsored links for which Respondent is paid some remuneration for each site visit, and on the basis that Respondent’s website advertises the disputed domain name for sale. B. Respondent
Respondent denies that it registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, claiming that it registered the disputed domain name when it expired and became available for registration. Respondent asserts that it had no intent to target Complainant or improperly use Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name, did not register the disputed domain name with Complainant’s trademark in mind, and never intended to target or profit from Complainant’s trademark.
Nevertheless, Respondent stipulates to transfer the disputed domain to Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant has requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.
Respondent has submitted a Response in which it consents to the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.
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) of the Policy.
Where Complainant seeks transfer of the domain name, and Respondent consents to transfer, then pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer. See Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Refining and Marketing Company. v. RareNames, WebReg,WIPO Case No. D2006-1336, and cases cited therein. 7. 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.
Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: September 5, 2013
1 In its Registrar Verification, the Registrar confirmed that the Registrant of the disputed domain name is Domain Administrator, Portmedia of Hong Kong. Domain Administrator informed the Center on May 30, 2013, that ESQ was its authorized representative in this matter. In its Response on June 17, 2013, Respondent stated to be Portmedia Inc., of Pompano Beach, Florida, USA.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy