1.1 The Complainant is Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH, of Meissen, Germany, represented by LS-IP Loth & Spuhler GbR Intellectual Property Law, Germany.
1.2 The Respondent is Richard Gillmeister, of Citrus Heights, California, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with FastDomain, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 10, 2013. On October 10, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 10, 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.
3.2 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”).
3.3 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 October 18, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 7, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 8, 2013.
3.4 The Center appointed Matthew S. Harris as the sole panelist in this matter on November 12, 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.
3.5 On the same day as the Panel’s appointment, the Center received an email from the Respondent. In that email the Respondent gave an explanation of why the Domain Name had been registered and stating that he was prepared to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant.
3.6 On November 13, 2013, the Panel issued a procedural order bringing the Respondent’s email to the attention of the Complainant and asking the Complainant to confirm whether it agreed to the transfer of the Domain Name or wished the Panel to proceed to a substantive decision. The procedural order also made it clear that even if the Complainant agreed to the transfer of the Domain Name, the Panel reserved the right to proceed to issue a substantive decision in this matter should it consider it to be appropriate to do so. The parties were referred in this respect to the discussion in relation to transfer by consent to be found at paragraph 4.13 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (the “WIPO Overview 2.0”).
3.7 On November 18, 2013, the Complainant’s lawyers sent an email to the Center confirming that the Complainant agreed to the transfer of the Domain Name to it on the basis of the Respondent’s consent. 4. Factual Background
4.1 It is not necessary given the parties’ consent and the Panel’s reasoning below to set out the factual background to this matter save to record that the Complainant is the owner of various registered trade marks around the world that comprise or incorporate the terms “Meissen” or “Meissen Porcelain”. They include:
(i) German registered trade mark no. 399643303 for the word mark MEISSEN in classes 21 and 37 with an application date of October 15, 1999; and
(ii) European Community registered trade mark no. 010295384 for the word mark MEISSEN PORCELAIN in classes 14, 21, 35 and 41 with a filing date of September 27, 2011. 5. Parties’ Contentions
5.1 It is not necessary given the parties’ consent and the Panel’s reasoning below to set out the parties’ contentions in this matter. 6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 As the Panel has already recorded in the Procedural History section of this decision, the Respondent has agreed that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant and the Complainant has agreed that the Panel can proceed to order the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant on the basis of that consent without the need to issue a substantive decision.
6.2 The basis upon which a panel might decide to order a transfer in circumstances such as these are addressed in some detail at paragraph 4.13 of the WIPO Overview 2.0. In the opinion of this Panel, the Policy and the Rules permit a panel to Order a transfer where the parties are agreed, subject to the discretion of a panel not to do so should it for any reason consider this to be inappropriate.
6.3 Having reviewed the case file in this matter, the Panel is of the view that there is no good reason not to proceed as the parties wish and to transfer of the Domain Name. 7. Decision
7.1. 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.
Matthew S. Harris
Sole Panelist
Date: November 18, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy