The Complainant is Roset SAS, France, represented by Germain & Maureau, France.
The Respondent is Private Registration, NameBrightPrivacy.com, United States of America / Charles Noble, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 26, 2021. On August 26, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 3, 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 September 3, 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 September 8, 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 September 17, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 7, 2021.
The Respondent sent an informal email communication on September 6, 2021. As a result, the Center sent to the Parties a possible settlement email to the Parties on September 6, 2021. The Complainant confirmed on September 13, 2021, that they did not wish to suspend the proceeding in order to discuss settlement options. The Center informed the Parties of its commencement of Panel Appointment process on October 10, 2021.
The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on October 14, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is a French company, which designs, manufactures and distributes furniture. Its roots date back to the year 1860.
The Complainant is the owner of the LIGNE ROSET trademark. Among others, the Complainant owns the French Trademark Registration No. 98 757 593, registered on October 29, 1998, and the International Trademark Registration No. 714 891, registered on April 4, 1999, both covering trademark protection inter alia for furniture products (Annex 4 to the Complaint).
The Complainant further owns and operates various domain names, like
The Respondent is an individual from Australia.
According to Annex 10 to the Complaint, the disputed domain name was initially registered by the Complainant on June 10, 1998. After an unintentionally non-renewal of the disputed domain name by the Complainant in July 2020, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 29, 2020, via a specialized backorder service for expired domain names (Annex 15 to the Complaint).
At the date of the Decision, the website linked to the disputed domain name displayed a “coming soon” notice. According to Annex 11, 13 and 14 to the Complaint, the disputed domain name has many backlinks, including to third-party websites in relation to the Complainant’s field of business.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusing similar to its LIGNE ROSE trademark.
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not substantively respond to the Complainant’s contentions. In its short email communications to the Center on September 6, 9 and 14, 2021, the Respondent made clear that he is “not challenging this case” and “wish to relinquish” the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
6. Discussion and FindingsAccording to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
For the evaluation of this case, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views stated therein.
A. Consent to TransferThe Panel notes that even without a formal settlement between the parties, a consent for the transfer of a disputed domain name by the respondent can provide sufficient basis for an order for transfer without the need for substantial consideration of the UDRP grounds and the further merits of the case. In view of WIPO Overview 3.0, paragraph 4.10, a panel may “order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent”.
In the present case, the Center received various email communications from the Respondent, which unequivocally and unambiguously express that the Respondent agrees to a transfer of the disputed domain name, most recently by email communication of September 14, 2021, to the Center, explicitly stating that the Respondent “wish[es] to relinquish the domain” to the Complainant.
The Panel finds that the email communications by the Respondent to the Center undoubtedly demonstrate its consent to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
The fact that no settlement agreement has been concluded between the Parties does, in view of the Panel, not affect the effectiveness of the Respondent’s unilateral consent to the transfer.
B. ConclusionThe Panel therefore exceptionally renders its Decision in summary form and orders the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
7. DecisionFor 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
Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: October 28, 2021