3M Innovative Properties
Company v. [Redacted]
Claim Number: FA0806001211165
PARTIES
Complainant is 3M Innovative Properties Company, (“Complainant”) represented by Michael S. Metteauer,
of Fulbright & Jaworski,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <3musa.us>, registered with Melbourne It
Ltd.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and
impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving
as Panelist in this proceeding.
Hon. Sir Ian Barker as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the
“Forum”) electronically on
On
On June 30, 2008, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of July 21, 2008 by which Respondent could
file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance
with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the
“Rules”).
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on
On
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark 3M. It has traded under the name 3M since
1906. It has operations in 60 countries
and sells its products worldwide. It has
200 registrations of the 3M mark in the
The Respondent has no rights in the Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not register the disputed domain name. She claims to have been the victim of
identity theft. Charges on her credit
card have been reversed and she has filed a Police Report. She requests the transfer of the disputed
domain name to the Complainant.
FINDINGS
The Respondent is the victim of identity theft and did not register the
disputed domain name, which can be transferred to the Complainant by consent.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of 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 or is
being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent
as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 usTLD 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. VEZ-Port D2000-0207
(WIPO May 8, 2000) and Slumberland France
v. Chadia Acohuri D2000-0195 (WIPO June 14, 2000).
Redaction of Respondent’s
Identity
The Respondent cited did not, in fact, register the disputed domain
name and the proper respondent is unknown.
In an effort to protect the Respondent’s name from being tarnished, the
Panel thinks it proper to redact Respondent’s personal information.
In Wells
Because the Respondent appears to have been the subject of identity
theft, the Panel considers this an “exceptional case” under ¶ 4(j) of the
Policy. Accordingly, all reference to
the identity of the Respondent and any contact details of the Respondent are
hereby redacted from the decision as published on the Internet or anywhere
else. Her details are to appear only on
the copy of this decision that is sent to the parties.
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 <3musa.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Sir Ian Barker, Panelist
Dated: