The Complainant is Dell Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by AZB & Partners, India.
The Respondent is New Project, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 7, 2021. On May 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 11, 2021, 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 May 14, 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 amended Complaint on May 15, 2021. 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 May 20, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 9, 2021. The Respondent sent an informal response on May 20, 2021 (see below). The Center appointed Nick J. Gardner as the sole panelist in this matter on July 19, 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 was founded in 1984 by Michael Dell and has since become a world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. The Complainant has also developed a family of businesses, collectively known as Dell Technologies that offers products and services related to technology, software, security, and more. In 2019, The Complainant ranked 35th in the annual Fortune 500 rankings and 67th in Brand Finance’s Global 500 Most Valuable Brands of 2019. The Complainant sells its products and services in over 180 countries around the world, generating over USD 91 billion in revenue in the fiscal year of 2019. The Complainant sells more than 100,000 computer systems every day to customers in 180 countries, including India. The Complainant has a team of 100,000 members across the world that caters to more than 5.4 million customers every day. The Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations consisting of or including the word DELL, including for example India trademark registration No. 575115, DELL (word), registered on June 15, 1992. These trademarks are referred to in this decision as the “DELL” trademark” The Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names consisting of or including the word DELL including The Disputed Domain Name was registered on January 25, 2021. It is linked to a website (the “Respondent’s Website “) which states that the Respondent is the Dell Laptop Service Center in Kolkata. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant says that the Respondent is not an authorised Dell Service centre and it is misleadingly giving the impression that it is. It says the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the DELL Trademark. It says the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the term “DELL” and the Disputed Domain Name is being used in bad faith. It says it does not allow even its authorised service centres to use domain names including the DELL trademark and the Disputed Domain Name is being used to mislead customers into believing the Respondent is an authorised service centre which amounts to bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent No Response has been filed. See below as to the content of an informal communication from the Respondent. 6. Discussion and Findings On May 20, 2021 the Respondent sent an email to the Center which read as follows “Respected Sir Or Madam, We Don’t Need This Domain Please Delete This Domain From Godaddy, We Are Dell Certified Saller Thats Why We Purchase This Domain But This Domain Is Not Need Us We Are Unfortunately Purchase This Domain”. The Panel reaches the conclusion based on this correspondence that the Respondent is consenting to the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant. The Panel therefore adopts the approach set out in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.10 as follows: “How do panels handle cases involving a respondent’s informal or unilateral consent for the transfer of the domain name to the complainant outside the ‘standard settlement process’ described above? 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’ described above, but where the respondent has nevertheless given its consent on the record to the transfer (or cancellation) remedy sought by the complainant, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent. In such cases, the panel gives effect to an understood party agreement as to the disposition of their case (whether by virtue of deemed admission, or on a no-fault basis).” See for example Infonxx.Inc v. Lou Kerner, WildSites.com,WIPO Case No. D2008-0434, where the Panel stated as follows: “However, this Panel considers that a genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. As was noted by the Panel in The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132, when the Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, the Panel may proceed immediately to make an order for transfer pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules. Accordingly, and in light of the parties’ stipulations set forth above, the Panel will order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. This is clearly the most expeditious course. Id.; Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port,WIPO Case No. D2000-0207.” Accordingly pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 10 and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name Nick J. Gardner
Sole Panelist
Date: August 5, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy