Complainant is AB Electrolux, Sweden represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
Respondent is Mehdi Falahnejad, Islamic Republic of Iran. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with IRNIC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 24, 2019. On April 24, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 27, 2019, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. Hard copies of the Complaint were received by the Center on May 20, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir 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 May 23, 2019. The last day for Respondent to submit its response was June 12, 2019. Respondent sent emails on May 29 and 30, 2019, stating that Respondent was willing to discontinue use of the disputed domain name.1 In response, that same day, the Center wrote to the parties, explaining the procedure by which Complainant might request a thirty-day suspension of proceedings to explore possible settlement.
On June 4, 2019, Complainant submitted such a request. The proceeding was suspended for settlement discussions. On July 4, 2019, referring to logistical difficulties of completing transfer of the disputed domain name, Complainant requested that the proceedings be reinstated.
The proceeding was reinstituted on July 5, 2019. The due date for Response was July 11, 2019. Respondent submitted no formal response to the Complaint. On July 16, 2019, the Center notified the Parties about the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process.
The Center appointed Jeffrey D. Steinhardt as sole panelist in this matter on July 26, 2918. 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
Complainant holds numerous worldwide trademark registrations for the AEG word mark, including in the Islamic Republic of Iran. For example, Complainant owns International Trademark Registration No. 802025 (registered December 18, 2002, in classes 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and designated via the Madrid Protocol for applicability in the Islamic Republic of Iran).
The disputed domain name was registered on January 7, 2019. The website to which the disputed domain name routes is currently inactive. However when these proceedings commenced, the Persian language website displayed the logos of AEG and other well-known appliance brands and offered commercial appliance repair services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Summarizing its legal contentions, Complainant alleges that (1) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and (3) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, all in violation of the Policy. 2 Complainant also avers that it sent Respondent a cease and desist letter on April 1, 2019 (annexed to the Complaint).
On the above grounds, Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name. 3 B. Respondent
On May 29, 2019, Respondent emailed the Center, writing “Hi We did not know the legal problem of this domain Be sure to handle and discontinue the domain”.
Later the same day, Respondent again wrote to the Center: “We have no problem copying the domain with the complainant, and we will inform IRNIC And we will take all our activities from this domain I hope this problem is over.”
On May 30, 2019, Respondent again emailed the Center, this time copying Complainant’s representative: “We apologize for the inconvenience We target the domain at We stopped. . . .We are in contact with you to move the domain”. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Substantive Rules of Decision
The Rules require the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Rules, paragraph 15(a). Panels rendering decisions under the irDRP frequently draw on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and associated decisions and norms, given the close similarity between the irDRP and UDRP.
Paragraph 10(a) of the Rules gives panels the discretion to conduct proceedings in such manner as they deem appropriate under the Policy and the Rules. According to paragraph 10(c) of the Rules, the Panel must “ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.” B. Respondent’s Consent to Transfer
The Panel finds that Respondent’s emailed written statements quoted above constitute Respondent’s consent to transfer of the disputed domain name. C. Ordering Transfer without Consideration of all Elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
The Panel concludes that Respondent’s consent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer, as explained below.
Where a complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name, and the respondent consents to transfer, then pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules, the panel can order transfer. In such instances, it is unnecessary for the panel to determine whether complainant has established its entitlement to transfer under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. See, e.g., The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132 (where complainant sought transfer of the disputed domain name, and respondent consented to transfer, paragraph 10 of the Rules permit a panel to proceed immediately to make order for transfer without determination of elements of paragraph 4(a)), citing Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port,WIPO Case No. D2000-0207).
The Panel notes that a respondent’s consent to transfer does not always result in an immediate transfer order without a detailed analysis applying the elements of the Policy, paragraph 4(a). Circumstances under which some panels have made a full determination of the complainant’s entitlement, in spite of a respondent’s clear consent to transfer, are summarized in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, section 4.10. The Panel finds no such circumstances are present in this proceeding. 7. 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 be transferred to Complainant.
Jeffrey D. Steinhardt
Sole Panelist
Date: August 7, 2019
1 Respondent also submitted further communications as elaborated below.
2 While it is alleged both that Respondent registered anduses the disputed domain name in bad faith, the irDRP requires only a showing of either bad faith registrationor bad faith use.
3 In light of the final disposition of this proceeding, it is unnecessary to recount Complainant’s factual allegations. It is also unnecessary to dwell upon factual allegations included in Respondent’s informal correspondence.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy