Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack
v. Michael Grace
Claim Number: FA0801001139566
PARTIES
Complainant is Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (“Complainant”), represented by William
B. Canfield, of Williams & Jensen PLLC,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <marybonomack.com> and <marybonomack.org>,
registered with Schlund+Partner Ag.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and
impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in
serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Hon. Sir Ian Barker, QC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on
On
On February 14, 2008, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 5, 2008 by which
Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to
Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s
registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@marybonomack.com and postmaster@marybonomack.org
by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 22, 2008.
On
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent
to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges that she has a common law service mark in her
own name “Mary Bono Mack.” She is a
sitting member of the House of Representatives of the
The Respondent has no rights to use her service mark and registered and
is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent states that he has no interest in the disputed domain
names. He no longer owns or controls
them. He registered the disputed domain
names on December 20, 2007 and used them to satirise the Complainant before
deleting them on January 27, 2008. He
agrees that they can be assigned to the Complainant.
FINDINGS
The disputed domain names are to be
transferred to the Complainant with the consent of the Respondent.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a
complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance
with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems
applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove
each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name
should be cancelled or transferred:
(1)
the
domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to
a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2)
the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
and
(3)
the
domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
However, where a respondent has admitted that he/she/it does not have
an interest in a disputed domain name and has consented to the transfer of the
disputed domain name, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and
order the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name. See
The same approach can be found in WIPO decisions such as Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. EZ-Port,
D2000-0207 (WIPO May 8, 2000) and Slumberland
France v. Chadia Acohuri, D2000-0195 (WIPO June 14, 2000).
DECISION
Because of the Respondent’s acknowledgment and the above authorities,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <marybonomack.com>
and <marybonomack.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Sir Ian Barker, QC,
Panelist
Dated: March 12, 2008