The Complainant is BDSRCO, INC., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Bone Mcallester Norton PLLC, United States.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / Konstantinos, Greece. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the ”Center”) on January 29, 2021, with respect to the disputed domain name and two other domain names. On February 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name and the other two domain names. On February 2, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 2, 2021, 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 February 17, 2021, and requested the withdrawal of the other two domain names. The Center received an email communication from the Respondent on February 19, 2021. On February 25, 2021, the Complainant requested the suspension of the proceeding. Pursuant to paragraph 17 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), the proceeding was suspended on February 26, 2021. The Center received an additional email from the Respondent on March 16, 2021. On March 30, 2021, the proceeding was reinstituted. 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, 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 March 31, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 20, 2021. The Center received an email communication from the Respondent on April 2, 2021. Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Rules, on April 21, 2021, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed with panel appointment. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on April 28, 2021. 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 The Complainant is a company located in Florida, United States. It is a provider of department store and related retail services under the trademark BEALLS and owns registrations including United States trademark number 4733841 for the word mark BEALLS, registered on May 12, 2015, with a filing date of August 13, 2012. The disputed domain name was registered on December 29, 2019. It has resolved to a website which appears to be unrelated to the Complainant or its business. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. 5. Disposal of Proceeding by Consent Under paragraph 10(a) of the Rules, panels have discretion to conduct proceedings in such manner as they deem appropriate under the Policy and the Rules. Where a complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name and the respondent consents to transfer, then a panel may make an order for transfer solely on the basis of that consent and without providing a reasoned decision as to the merits of the case: see e.g. section 4.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). However, despite a respondent’s consent, a panel may still proceed to a reasoned decision should it consider it appropriate to do so in the circumstances mentioned in section 4.10. Those circumstances may include a case where, notwithstanding the respondent’s consent, the complainant still seeks a reasoned decision. In an email to the Complainant dated February 18, 2021, and further emails to the Complainant and the Center dated February 19, 2021, February 20, 2021, February 23, 2021, March 16, 2021, and April 2, 2021, the Respondent indicated what amounts in the Panel’s view to its unequivocal and unconditional agreement to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Complainant requested a suspension of the proceeding on February 25, 2021, but the record does not reflect any reason why the transfer was not completed, nor any further communication from the Complainant submitting that a transfer by consent would not be appropriate or requiring a fully reasoned decision. The Panel finds in the circumstances that it is appropriate to make an order for transfer based solely upon the Respondent’s consent to transfer and that there is no necessity for a fully reasoned decision in this case. 6. 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, Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: May 3, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy