The Complainant is Frutarom Netherlands B.V. of Ede, Netherlands, represented by GEVERS MARKS, Belgium.
The Respondent is Mr. Frode Bohan of Oslo, Norway, represented by Malgorzata Sierdzinska, Poland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 15, 2013. On July 15, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 16, 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 July 23, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 12, 2013. The Response was filed with the Center on August 12, 2013.
The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on August 23, 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 disputed domain name was registered on November 25, 2010. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is a flavor and fine ingredients company which is selling products in the food industry under the trademark UNIK2. The Complainant alleged that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant had rights, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, under the provisions of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent’s legal representative made a “unilateral consent to transfer” the disputed domain name to the Complainant, and drew the Panel’s attention to the decision in The Cartoon Network LLP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132. 6. Discussion and Findings
In The Cartoon Network LLP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132, the panel considered 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, and 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, a panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer. The Panel in this case agrees with the reasoning of the panel in The Cartoon Network LLP, LLLP, Supra and, in the circumstances of the present case, where a Complaint was filed by the Complainant while negotiations between the parties were taking place, considers it appropriate to find that, a genuine unilateral consent to transfer having been made by the Respondent, the Panel can proceed, under paragraph 10 of the Rules, to make an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements, which the Panel so does. 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.
George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: September 10, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy