The Complainant is Banco Bradesco S/A of Osasco, São Paulo, Brazil, represented by Pinheiro, Nunes, Arnaud & Scatamburlo S/C, Brazil.
The Respondent is Belcanto Investment Group Limited of Charlestown, Nevis, Saint Kitts and Nevis. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 12, 2013. On June 12, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 13, 2013, 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.
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 June 21, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 11, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 12, 2013.
On July 24, 2013, the Respondent sent an email to the Center that it does “not wish to contest the Complaint and hereby authorize the immediate transfer of the domain to the Complainant.” On the same date the Center invited the Complainant to consider requesting a suspension of the proceedings to explore a possible settlement between the parties. On July 25, 2013, the Complainant requested the Center to suspend the proceedings for a 30 day period, and on the same date the Center accordingly notified the parties that the proceedings would be suspended until August 24, 2013. Further to the Complainant’s request of August 23, 2013, the Center notified the parties that the proceedings would be further suspended until September 23, 2013. On September 20, 2013, the Complainant asked the Center to reinstitute the proceedings, and the Center notified the parties that the proceedings were reinstituted on September 23, 2013.
The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on September 26, 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 was constituted, under the denomination “Banco Brasileiro De Descontos”, in 1943. Nowadays, the denomination is “Banco Bradesco S/A” and it is established in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. The Complainant is one of the leaders in the Brazilian private banking services. The Complainant’s trademark BRADESCO was first filed in Brazil on June 13, 1979. This trademark was declared notorious by the Instituto Nacional de Propriedade Industrial (the Brazilian Patents and Trademarks Office). The Complainant is also the owner of numerous BRADESCO trademarks around the world. The Complainant is also the owner of the following domain names: , , and .
Respondent registered the domain name on March 8, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that: (i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests whatsoever with respect to the disputed domain name; (iii) the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not file a substantive reply to the Complainant’s contentions, but in response to the receipt of the Notification of Respondent Default offered to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant: “As the registrant of this domain name I would like to inform all parties that I do not wish to contest the Complaint and hereby authorize the immediate transfer of the domain to the Complainant”. 6. Discussions and Findings
In the present case the Complainant has requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. As well the Respondent, after receiving the Notification of Respondent Default, sent an email to the Center expressing its willingness to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
Since the Respondent’s email was sent after the deadline set by the Center, the Panel considers it as a supplemental filing. This Panel, taking into consideration paragraph 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) regarding unsolicited supplemental filings, agrees with the majority, that affirms that, while panels must be mindful of the need for procedural efficiency, they have “discretion to accept an unsolicited supplemental filing from either party”, bearing in mind the obligation to treat each party with equality and ensure that each party has a fair opportunity to present its case. It is also helpful if the party submitting its filing can show its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide that information in the complaint or response.
In this case, the Panel considers that accepting the Respondent’s email is fair for both parties and relevant for the case. In fact, in this email the Respondent clearly states its willingness “to transfer the domain name to the Complainant”.
Regarding how to consider the Respondent’s request to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant, it should be noted that, as described in The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132, panels, when faced with a “unilateral consent to transfer,” have taken three different approaches. Some panels have granted the relief requested on the basis of respondent’s consent without a review and analysis of the facts supporting the claim. Williams Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ Port,WIPO Case No. D2000-0207; Slumberland France v. Chadia Acohuri, WIPO Case No. D2000-0195. Others have held that the consent to transfer is effectively a concession that the three elements of the Policy have been satisfied, and ordered transfer on this basis. Qosina Corporation v. Qosmedix Group, WIPO Case No. D2003-0620; Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB,WIPO Case No. D2000-1398. Still other panels have proceeded to analyze whether the evidence submitted satisfies the three elements of the Policy. Société Française du Radiotéléphone-SFR v. Karen,WIPO Case No. D2004-0386; Eurobet UK Limited v. Grand Slam Co.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0745.
In this proceeding the Respondent’s consent to transfer appears to be entirely unconditional.
In addition, the Panel here finds that: 1) the Complainant has established rights to the trademark BRADESCO and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to this trademark; and 2) that the Respondent has not contested the Complaint nor asserted any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
As regards the third element requested by the Policy, i.e. bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name, this Panel finds that, due to the Respondent’s unconditional willingness to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant, there is no need to discuss this issue. Indeed, this Panel decides to follow the reasoning of those panels which found that the consent to transfer is a concession that the three elements of the Policy have been satisfied, see Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) v. Domain Hostmaster,WIPO Case No. D2007-1800. 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.
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: October 8, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy