The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is Vacanta of Zoetermeer, the Netherlands. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain name”) is registered with SIDN through Virtual Registrar. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 7, 2012. On November 7, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to SIDN a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain name. On November 8, 2012, SIDN transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names (the “Regulations”).
In accordance with the Regulations, articles 5.1 and 16.4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 13, 2012. In accordance with the Regulations, article 7.1, the due date for Response was December 3, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 4, 2012.
On December 4, 2012, the Center received an email communication from the Respondent, indicating inter alia that “L is not any longer online”. On December 5, 2012, the Center invited the Complainant to submit a request for suspension of the proceedings to explore a possible settlement between the parties. On the same day, the Complainant submitted a request for suspension and the Center suspended the proceedings until January 4, 2013. On January 4, 2013, the Complainant requested the Center to re-institute the proceedings, and on the same day the Center informed the parties that the proceedings were re-instituted and that the Center would proceed with the panel appointment process. Following the Center’s notification on January 4, 2013, the Respondent sent an email communication stating “We don’t own the domain name any longer. The internet company BiedMeer has the domain name at December 14, 2012 recited, see the mail her [sic] under”.
The Center appointed Remco M.R. van Leeuwen as the panelist in this matter on January 24, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panelist has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Regulations, article 9.2.
On January 24, 2013, the Respondent forwarded to the Center an email communication sent to SIDN, requesting cancellation of the Domain Name registration. 4. Discussion and Findings
Article 10.2 of the Regulations requires the Panel to act in accordance with the Regulations and to decide on its own competence. Article 10.4 requires the Panel to ensure that the proceedings shall take place with due expedition. Article 19.1 requires an appointed panel to terminate the proceedings, inter alia, if the parties reach a settlement before the Panel renders a decision, or if it becomes unnecessary to continue the proceedings.
In this case the parties were apparently not able to formalize the settlement and/or transfer of the Domain Name during the suspension of the proceedings. The Panel notes, however, that the Respondent has unequivocally indicated that it no longer wishes to keep the Domain Name registered in its name (the Panel has ascertained that the Domain Name registration has remained in the Respondent’s name throughout these proceedings). In light of article 19.1 of the Regulations, the Panel finds it appropriate to grant the relief requested by the Complainant on the basis of the Respondent’s consent.
This Panel approach accords with a number of decisions under the UDRP1, such as Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207; and Slumberland France v. Chadia Acohuri,WIPO Case No. D2000-0195). 5. Decision
For the foregoing reason, in accordance with articles 1, 14 and 19 of the Regulations, the Panel orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Remco M.R. van Leeuwen
Panelist
Date: February 19, 2013
1 The mechanism of the Regulations is comparable to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), see Technische Unie B.V. and Otra Information Services v. Technology Services Ltd.,WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0002.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy