WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Mozilla Foundation, Mozilla Corporation v. Metro Media Case No. DME2008-0006 1. The Parties
Complainants are Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, both of Mountain View, California, United States of America, represented by The Gigalaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States.
Respondent is Metro Media, of Beverly Hills, California, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 11, 2008. On that same day, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 11, 2008, GoD, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”) as approved by the doMEn d.o.o (“doMEn”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy as approved by the doMEn (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 18, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 7, 2009. Respondent failed to file a timely response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 8, 2009.
On January 13, 2009, the Center received an unsolicited Supplemental submission from the Complainant.
The Center appointed Harrie R. Samaras as the sole panelist in this matter on January 21, 2009. 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.
On January 27, 2009, the Center received an unsolicited submission from a representative of Respondent expressing her unequivocal intent to transfer the Domain Name to Complainants. 4. Factual Background
Complainant Mozilla Foundation was established in July 2003, as a California not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the public benefit. Complainant Mozilla Corporation was established in August 2005 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation, to coordinate the development and marketing of Mozilla technologies and products. The term “Mozilla” describes an open-source software project (the “Mozilla Project”) whose code has been used as a platform for Internet projects, as well as a global community who believes in the power of technology to enrich people's lives. The result is a suite of products that have been translated into more than 50 languages. One of those products, the Firefox Internet browser, has received various accolades: the “Best of open source productivity apps” award from InfoWorld; “Editors' Choice” award from PC Magazine; “Editors' Choice” award from CNET; and the “Reader's Choice” award for “Favorite Web Browser” from Linux Journal.
Mozilla Foundation is also the owner of approximately 39 trademark registrations in approximately 17 countries consisting of or including the mark FIREFOX, including U.S. Reg. No. 2,974,321 for FIREFOX (the “FIREFOX Mark”). Mozilla Corporation is a licensee of the FIREFOX Mark.
Furthermore, Complainant is the registrant of approximately 78 domain names containing the FIREFOX Mark or variations thereof, including the domains name , which was registered on October 6, 1998.
Respondent registered the Domain Name on July 10, 2008. In response to a demand sent by Complainants' registrar, Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to Complainants for at least USD10,000.00. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the FIREFOX Mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith, including that Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to Complainants registrar for over USD10,000.00 and Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct that includes registering domain names incorporating the well-known trademarks of other companies. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply substantively to Complainants' contentions. As indicated above, Respondent filed an untimely submission with the Center indicating an unequivocal intent to transfer the Domain Name to Complainants. Indeed, Respondent also attached with its submission correspondence to the registrar of the Domain Name, GoD, Inc., attempting to effect the transfer of the Domain Name to the “rightful owner.” Although Respondent's submissions were untimely, the Panel accepts them into the record insofar as they express a clear intent to transfer the Domain Name to address the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings
In light of Respondent's unequivocal willingness to have the Domain Name transferred to Complainants, the Panel does not believe it is necessary to elaborate further. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Carl Seigler, WIPO Case No. D2000-0984. Had the Panel been required to make substantive findings, the Panel would have concluded on the evidence of record that Complainants had satisfied their burden that (a) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the FIREFOX Mark; (b) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (c) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the requirements of paragraph 4(a) are satisfied. See eM, Inc. v. Mp3DownLoadCity, WIPO Case No. D2004-0967 (March 1, 2005) (panel concluded that the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy were satisfied where respondent consented to the transfer of the domain name at issue); Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd. v. Hoang Anh Minh and , WIPO Case No. D2003-0355 (August 18, 2003) (panel concluded that the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy were satisfied where respondent consented to the transfer of the domain name at issue and the facts of the case); DESOTEC N.V. v. JACOBI CARBONS AB, WIPO Case No. D2000-1398 (December 21, 2000) (panel concluded that the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy were satisfied where respondent consented to the transfer of the domain name at issue and the facts of the case). 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to Complainant, Mozilla Corporation.
Harrie R. Samaras
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 1, 2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy