1.1 The Complainant is Milipol of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Beau de Lomenie, France.
1.2 The Respondent is Muhmmad Shahbaz Bhatti, Au Web Graphics of Sialkot, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 17, 2018. On October 18, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 19, 2018, 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 and contact information for the disputed domain name.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 25, 2018.
3.4 On November 1, 2018, the Respondent sent an email to the Center, stating:
“Hello Sir or Madam, We have received your Notice regarding the conflict of our subjected domain name. We are hereby to inform you that our company is Registered in June 2012 from SCCI (Sialkot Chamber of Commerce Industry) Pakistan, since last 6 years. And we are supplying the Uniform Accessories almost all over the world. As you know Milipol Uniform Co. is our business name, and I think there shouldn’t be any issue in our domain name as we are using the domain name behalf of our company name which I think, may not infringe your copy rights. Please advise. Kind Regards, Muhammad Usman.”
3.5 In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 14, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Commencement of Panel appointment process on November 15, 2018.
3.6 The Center appointed Matthew S. Harris as the sole panelist in this matter on November 22, 2018. 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.
3.7 On November 23, 2018 the Respondent sent a further email to the Center in the following terms:
“We have [suspended]this account and we dont need more this domain. If you want to transfer this domain in your panel you can transfer. Further we just a small thing if you can pay its expenses we will be very thankfull.”
3.8 On November 26, 2018 the Center sent to the parties at the request of the Panel an email in the following terms:
“The Center has provided a copy of the Respondent’s email to the Panel of 23 November 2018. From this it is apparent to the Panel that the Respondent consents to the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant. Given this and having reviewed the case file, the Panel’s intention is to issue a decision in an abbreviated form similar to that adopted in Statoil ASA v. gaelle etienne / WhoisGuard Protected,WIPO Case No. D2015-1812, ordering the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.
If the Complainant objects to that approach the Panel asks the Complainant to inform the Center of that objection (together with its reasons for that objection) by no later than 5 pm (Central European Time) on Thursday 29 November 2018.
If for any reason both parties would prefer that an abbreviated form of decision not be issued and would prefer that the proceedings instead be terminated pursuant to paragraph 17(a)(iii) of the Rules, they should file a completed Standard Settlement Form in exactly the form set out at Annex F to the WIPO Supplemental Rules that has been signed by both parties. The Panel requests that this again be done by no later than 5 pm (Central European Time) on Thursday 29 November 2018.
In the absence of either an objection from the Complainant or a completed Standard Settlement Form, the Panel intends to proceed without further delay to issue a decision in the form indicated.”
3.9 Both on November 26 and 27, 2018, the Respondent sent emails confirming that it agreed to the transfer. It repeated the request for payment of expenses but characterised this as a “request” and “not any terms and condition”. No objection was raised by the Complainant to the Panel’s proposed approach. 4. Factual Background
4.1 The Complainant is an “Economic Interest Group” based in Paris. It organises trade shows and exhibitions related to police equipment, civil and military security, and related services, and has engaged in this activity under the “Milipol” name since at least 1995.
4.2 The Complainant is the owner of a large number of registered trade marks around the world that comprise or incorporate the term “milipol”. They include, International Trade Mark Registration No. 1379315 for the word mark MILIPOL, dated September 12, 2017, that has proceeded to registration in a large number of states. This international registration is based upon a French trade mark (No. 4373310) registered on July 3, 2017.
4.3 The Domain Name was registered on September 4, 2018.
4.4 The Respondent would appear to be based in Pakistan. The Domain Name has been used subsequent to registration for a website offering uniform accessories. 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 in any further detail. 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 Names be transferred to the Complainant. The parties have also been informed that the Panel proposes to deal with this matter based on that consent without the need to issue a substantive decision. Neither party has suggested that the Panel should not proceed on this basis.
6.2 The basis upon which a UDRP panel might decide to order a transfer or cancellation in circumstances where the respondent consents to this is addressed at paragraph 4.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition “WIPO Overview 3.0”). 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.
6.3 Having reviewed the case file in this matter the Panel is of the view that there is no good reason not to simply order the transfer of the Domain Name.
6.4 The Panel notes that the Respondent has asked for its expenses to be repaid but has not made this a condition of the transfer. The Panel has no power under the Policy or Rules to make an order in the terms requested. 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 30, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy