The Complainant is Jardiland, France, represented by Fidal, France.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Basile Quinchon, France, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 16, 2020. On July 16, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 16, 2020, 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 July 17, 2020, 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 amendment to the Complaint on July 17, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 21, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 10, 2020. On July 22, 2020, the Respondent sent an informal email communication to the Center. On July 22, 2020, the Center sent an email communication to the Parties regarding the possible suspension and settlement of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any formal response nor did the Complainant request to suspend the proceeding. On August 28, 2020, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to panel appointment. On August 29, 2020, the Respondent sent a further email communication to the Center. On September 1, 2020, the Center re-informed the Parties of the possibility to suspend and settle the proceeding. On September 3, 2020, the Complainant indicated that it did not intend to suspend the proceeding. On the same day, the Respondent sent another email communication to the Center. The Center appointed Jane Seager as the sole panelist in this matter on September 10, 2020. 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. Factual Background Founded in 1973, the Complainant is a French retailer of garden and other home products. The Complainant operates some 200 stores in France and in other countries. For use in connection with its retail operations, the Complainant is the owner of various JARDILAND and JARDILAND-formative trademarks, including: - International Trademark Registration No. 1268138, JARDILAND, registered on April 14, 2015, designating China, the European Union, Morocco, and Switzerland. The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on December 9, 2019. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website titled “My Garden Manager – Manage, Cultivate and Grow your Garden and your Experience”, which appeared to display information about gardens. On March 5, 2020, the Complainant sent a request for suspension of the website at the disputed domain name to the Registrar. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website, having been deactivated at the request of the Respondent upon receiving notice of this proceeding. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent On July 22, 2020, one day after having been notified of this proceeding, the Respondent sent an informal email communication to the Center stating that he had sent a request to the Registrar asking for removal of the disputed domain name so that it would be available to the Complainant. In subsequent email communications on August 29, 2020, and September 3, 2020, the Respondent reiterated his willingness to cooperate with the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. The Respondent’s Consent to Remedy As stated in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.10, where parties to a UDRP proceeding have not been able to settle their dispute prior to the issuance of a panel decision using the “standard settlement process”, but where the respondent has nevertheless given its consent on the record to the transfer remedy sought by the complainant, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent. The Complainant has asserted that it sent a “cease-and-desist” letter to the Registrar, notifying it of the “fraudulent reservation and use of the disputed domain name”, and that the Complainant’s communication remained unanswered. The Panel notes that the “cease-and-desist” letter was addressed solely to the Registrar, and contained no instructions to forward the communication to the Respondent. The Panel is also of the view that the Complainant’s allegations of the Respondent’s fraudulent use of the disputed domain name are not supported in evidence. The Panel further notes that upon receipt of the Center’s Notification of the Complaint, the Respondent immediately took steps to take down the website at the disputed domain name. In all communications to the Center, the Respondent has intimated his willingness to cooperate with the Complainant and to “settle this problem nicely”, “to completely delete the domain name”, and that “[i]f you want a fast decision, fine, just know that I agree 100% with closing this domain name”. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the most efficient means of disposing of this case is to order transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant based on the Respondent’s unambiguous communications. In the circumstances, the Panel does not consider it necessary to issue a decision on the merits. 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 Jane Seager
Sole Panelist
Date: October 6, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy