1.1 The Complainant is Florim Ceramiche S.p.A of Fiorano Modenese, Italy, represented by Bardehle Pagenberg, Italy.
1.2 The Respondent is Light Link Solutions of Morbi, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 14, 2015. The relief sought in the Complaint was cancelation of the Domain Name.
3.2 On April 14, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 14, 2015, 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.
3.3 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”).
3.4 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 April 23, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 13, 2015. The Center received an email communication from the Respondent’s email address (as listed in the WhoIs and confirmed by the Registrar) on April 28, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any substantive response. Accordingly, the Center notified the parties of the commencement of the Panel appointment process on May 15, 2015.
3.5 The Center appointed Matthew S. Harris as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 2015. 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
3.6 On May 22, 2015, the Center received an email that appeared to the Panel to indicate that the Respondent agreed to the cancellation of the Domain Name.
3.7 On May 26 2014 the Panel issued a Procedural Order in which it referred to the relief claimed by the Complainant and the Respondent’s email of May 22, 2015. The Procedural Order also referred to paragraph 4.13 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (the “WIPO Overview 2.0”) and informed the parties that in light of these documents the Panel proposed to issue a decision in similar form to that issued in Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH v. Richard GillmeisterWIPO Case No. D2013-1743. The Procedural Order stated that if either party objected to the Panel proceeding in this fashion, it should send an email to the Center informing the Panel of that objection and setting out that party’s reasons for any such objection, by no later than 9 am (Geneva time) on May 29, 2015.
3.8 As at the date of this decision no objection has been received from either party. 4. Factual Background
4.1 Given the matters set out in the Procedural History section of this decision and the Panel’s reasoning below, it is not necessary 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 “Florim”. They include:
(i) Registered United States trade mark No 2498867 filed on July 12, 1999 for the word mark FLORIM in class 19; and
(ii) International trade mark 646120 with an application date of November 3, 1995 in classes 11, 19 and 21 designating over 20 states. This trade mark takes the following form:
5. Parties’ Contentions
5.1 Given the matters set out in the Procedural History section of this decision and the Panel’s reasoning below, it is not necessary 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 cancelled and neither the Respondent nor the Complainant has objected to the Panel proceeding to order the cancellation of the Domain Name 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 or cancellation in circumstances where the respondent consents to this 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 cancellation in such circumstances, 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 and the Complainant and the Respondent having raised no objection to the Panel proceeding in this manner, the Panel is of the view that there is no good reason not to simply order the cancellation 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 Domain Name, be cancelled.
Matthew S. Harris
Sole Panelist
Date: May 29, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy