The Complainant is Bayer AG, Germany, represented by BPM Legal., Germany.
The Respondent is Baharsys Telecom, Baharsys Co., Iran (Islamic Republic of). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 28, 2020. On July 28, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 29, 2020, IRNIC 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 .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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 30, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 19, 2020. On August 16, 2020, the Center received a communication from the Respondent in response to which the Center sent to the Parties an email regarding possible settlement. On August 20, 2020, the Complainant requested suspension of the proceeding. Accordingly, on the same day, the Center notified to the Parties of the suspension of the proceeding until September 19, 2020. Following a number of requests by the Complainant to extend the suspension period, the proceeding remained suspended until December 29, 2020. During the suspension period, the Respondent submitted, on October 23, 2020, a communication indicating its willingness to comply with the remedy requested by the Complainant, namely transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. On December 20, 2020, the Complainant requested the reinstitution of the proceeding due to the technical issues that arose in connection with the attempted transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Center reinstituted the proceeding on December 29, 2020, allowing the Respondent until January 3, 2021, to submit a response. The Respondent did not submit a formal response. Accordingly, on January 4, 2021, the Center notified the Parties that it was proceeding to panel appointment. The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on January 8, 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 is an international pharmaceutical company which was established in 1863. It operates principally in the fields of healthcare, nutrition and plant protection. The Complainant has more than 115,000 employees worldwide. The Complainant owns many registered trademarks for BAYER including German trademark no. 44115, registered on June 2, 1900, in classes 2 and 5. The disputed domain name was created on July 14, 2010. According to the Registrar, it was acquired by the Respondent on September 3, 2013. As of August 23, 2017, the disputed domain name redirected to the Complainant’s website. The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to a website. 5. Parties’ Contentions It is unnecessary to consider the Parties’ contentions in view of the basis for the Panel’s decision, explained below. 6. Discussion and Findings Section 4.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)1 observes that, where a respondent has given its consent on the record to the transfer remedy sought by a complainant, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent. However, panels may still find it appropriate to proceed to a substantive decision on the merits in certain circumstances including where the complainant has not agreed to accept such consent and has expressed a preference for a recorded 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 Adam Taylor 1 Noting the substantive similarities between the Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the Panel has referred to WIPO Overview 3.0, where appropriate.
Here, as explained in section 3 above, the Respondent has consented to the remedy requested by the Complainant. Not only has the Complainant indicated that it accepts such consent, the Parties have attempted to implement the transfer but were apparently unsuccessful for technical reasons. In these circumstances, the Panel does not consider that any of the factors favouring a substantive decision on the merits apply and, accordingly, the Panel has decided to order transfer of the disputed domain name on the basis of the Respondent’s consent. 7. Decision
Sole Panelist
Date: January 22, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy