The Complainant is Anadarko Petroleum Corporation of the Woodlands, Texas, United States of America ("US"), represented by Adams and Reese LLP, US.
The Respondent is Admin Contacter, Sol Invictus Comiti LP of "Pfaffikon City", Switzerland / Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, US, represented by Willenken Wilson Loh & Delgado, LLP of US. 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 September 24, 2014. On September 25, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 25, 2014, 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 September 26, 2014 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 September 26, 2014.
The Center verified that 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 October 1, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 21, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response by then. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 22, 2014.
The Center appointed James McNeish Innes as the sole panelist in this matter on October 31, 2014. 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.
The Respondent thereafter filed a Response out of time on November 3, 2014 indicating its consent to the relief requested by the Complainant. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is located in the Woodlands, Texas. It owns 21 valid and subsisting US Trademark Registrations embodying the ANADARKO and ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION marks (collectively the "Trademarks"). It has used the Trademarks in commerce continually since 1985 to advertise, market, distribute and sell goods in diverse fields ranging from oil and gas exploration, drilling and production to building construction and other commercial activity. It has since 1985 spent millions of dollars advertising, marketing, and promoting the ANADARKO brand under the Trademarks in the US and throughout the world in a wide variety of media formats. It has owned and operated an Internet website under the domain name since 1994. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 19, 2014. 5. Discussion
The Complainant has requested that the Panel issue a decision ordering that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. By its Response served on November 3, 2014 the Respondent asks that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant without further findings of fact or liability including those related to the elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. A number of previous UDRP decisions support the view that a panel may in these circumstances order the transfer of a disputed domain name without the necessary review as to facts and without making findings on the merits of the matter under the Policy. The Respondent cited the following passage from the Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132 in support of its request:
"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) elements. 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 the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer. This is clearly the most expeditious course (see Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207)."
I accept this and will proceed on the same basis as above for the same reasons. 6. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, 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.
James McNeish Innes
Sole Panelist
Date: November 7, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy