The Complainant is HID Global Corporation, United States of America, represented by Cohausz & Florack, Germany.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privatewhois biz, Turkey / Mustafa Dindar, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Reg2C.com Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 2, 2019. On April 2, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 9, 2019, 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 the same day, 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 April 10, 2019.
The Registrar confirmed that the language of the registration agreement is in Turkish, whereas the Complaint was submitted in English. On April 9, 2019, The Center sent the Parties a language of proceedings email in which they were invited to substantiate their arguments on the language of proceedings. The Complainant replied to this request on April 10, 2019, arguing in favor of English being the language of proceedings. No response received from the Respondent.
On April 11, 2019, The Center received an email communication from the Respondent requesting time to discuss a possible settlement. The Center therewith sent the Parties a possible settlement email. In response, on April 12, 2019, the Center received the Complainant’s request to suspend the proceedings for settlement discussions. Accordingly, the case at hand was suspended until May 12, 2019. Upon the receipt of Complainant’s request dated May 9, 2019, to extend suspension period, the proceedings were further suspended until June 12, 2019.
On June 11, 2019, the Center received the Complainant’s request to reinstitute the proceedings. Accordingly, the proceedings herein were reinstituted as of June 12, 2019. 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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 13, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 3, 2019. The Respondent on July 2, 2019, requested additional time to submit a response under paragraph 5(b) of the Rules. The Respondent was granted the automatic four calendar day, extending the due date for response until July 7, 2019.
The Center notified the Parties on the commencement of Panel Appointment on July 8, 2019. Following the latter notification, the Center received a late submission of Response.
The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on July 16, 2019. 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. 4. Language of the Proceedings
Although the language of the registration agreement of the disputed domain name is the Turkish language, the Panel finds that it would be unnecessary, given the circumstances of this case, to conduct the proceedings in Turkish and to request the submission of costly and time-consuming translations of documents by the Complainant. The Respondent made use of its right to respond to the Complaint in Turkish language. Furthermore, the Respondent acknowledged in said Response that it had read the Complaint (which was filed in English language) carefully. By doing so, the Panel concludes that the Respondent must be well able to read and understand the English language.
In light of the above, the Panel comes to the conclusion that the Respondent will not be prejudiced by a decision being rendered in English.
Hence, the Panel determines in accordance with the Complainant’s request and the Rules, paragraph 11(a), that the language of these administrative proceedings shall be the English language. 5. Factual Background
The Complainant is a provider of equipment and software for access control devices and systems involving the use of radio frequency identification devices (RFID) and near field communication (NFC) devices.
The Complainant and its parent company are the owners of the trademarks HID and HID GLOBAL, which are both registered in various jurisdictions, e.g., as International Trademark Registration No. 1200311, registered on July 19, 2013.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 4, 2016.
The Respondent is a retailer, offering and selling the Complainant’s products in Turkey.
Although, certain allegations in the Complaint are disputed by the Respondent, the Respondent repeatedly stated in its submissions to the Center that he agrees to the voluntary and unconditioned transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. 6. Consent to Transfer
In line with previous UDRP panels, the Panel notes that consent to transfer by the Respondent can provide a basis for an order for transfer without a need for consideration of the merits of the case as well as the UDRP grounds. The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132 and Pierre Balmain S.A. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Daniel Phillips,WIPO Case No. D2015-0189. Taking also into account the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), paragraph 4.10, the Panel finds that when the Complainant asks for transfer of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent agrees accordingly, the Panel may proceed immediately to make an order for transfer.
In light of the above and the Respondent’s repeatedly provided consent to an unconditional transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel does not see a necessity to go into the merits of this case for the purpose of rendering a decision. The fact that a settlement agreement between the Parties could not be executed within the provided suspension period does not prevent the Panel from taking the Respondent’s consent to transfer as the basis for its decision. 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.
Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: July 25, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy