The Complainant is Telemundo Network Group LLC of Hialeah, Florida, United States of America, represented by Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc. of Kirkland, Washington, United States of America / Domain Vault LLC of Dallas, Texas, United States of America ("U.S."), represented by L, Spain. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
"Center") on May 2, 2016. On May 3, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 3, 2016, 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. On May 4, 2016, the Respondent's representative sent an email to the Center stating that they are acting as Respondent's representative in this proceeding and asking for a copy of the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 9, 2016 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 May 12, 2016.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent and the Respondent's representative of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 17, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 6, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 8, 2016.
The Center appointed Douglas M. Isenberg as the sole panelist in this matter on June 13, 2016. 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.
On June 13, 2016, counsel for Respondent sent an email to the Center, stating, in relevant part: "Respondent has no objection to a speedy transfer and the panelist may consider this as an express stipulation to do so as soon as possible."
On June 15, 2016, the Panel issued a Procedural Order asking whether the Complainant or the Respondent objected to a decision consistent with Florim Ceramiche S.p.A. v. Light Link Solutions,WIPO Case No. D2015-0667, in which the panel issued an order in favor of the complainant without providing any substantive discussion or findings. On June 15, 2016, counsel for the Respondent responded to the order, stating, in relevant part: "Respondent has no objection." On June 17, 2016, counsel for the Complainant responded to the order, stating, in relevant part: "Complainant has no objection." 4. Factual Background
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 trademarks around the world that comprise or incorporate the term "Telemundo," including U.S. Reg. No. 1,590,174 (first used in commerce on December 30, 1969; registered on April 3, 1990) for use in connection with "television broadcasting services." 5. Parties' Contentions
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
As the Panel has already recorded in the Procedural History section of this decision, the Respondent has agreed that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred and neither the Respondent nor the Complainant has objected to the Panel proceeding to order the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name on the basis of that consent without the need to issue a substantive decision.
The basis upon which a panel might decide to order a transfer in circumstances where the respondent consents to this are addressed in some detail at paragraph 4.13 of the WIPO Overview 2.0: "Where the parties to a UDRP dispute have not succeeded in settling a case between themselves prior to the rendering of a panel decision, but the respondent has given its unilateral and unambiguous consent on the record to the remedy sought by the complainant, a panel may at its discretion order transfer (or cancellation) of the domain name on that basis alone."
In the opinion of this Panel, the Policy and the Rules permit a panel to order transfer in such circumstances, subject to the discretion of a panel not to do so should it for any reason consider this to be inappropriate. See, e.g., Florim Ceramiche S.p.A. v. Light Link Solutions,WIPO Case No. D2015-0667. The Panel notes that this is not a situation in which the Complainant has objected to a voluntary transfer without a substantive decision, in which case previous panels have instead issued decisions only after a full discussion and findings. See, e.g., Vienna Beef Ltd v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2007-1133 (despite respondent's consent to transfer, "[t]his Panel considers it wise, absent a signed stipulation between the parties or a withdrawal of the Complaint, to… proceed to consider the merits of the case") (emphasis added).
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 transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. 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.
Douglas M. Isenberg
Sole Panelist
Date: June 20, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy