Scores Holding Company, Inc. v. jason davison
Claim Number: FA1403001551756
Complainant is Scores Holding Company, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Neal Greenfield of Scores Holding Company, Inc., New York, USA. Respondent is jason davison (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <costaricascores.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 31, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 1, 2014.
On March 31, 2014, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <costaricascores.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 2, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 22, 2014 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@costaricascores.com. Also on April 2, 2014, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 25, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions.
i. Complainant, Scores Holding Company, Inc., has been licensing its SCORES trademarks to fine gentlemen’s nightclubs and restaurants with adult entertainment in the United States and abroad.
ii. Complainant owns trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the SCORES mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,830,405, registered April 12, 1994).
iii. Respondent’s <costaricascores.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORES mark.
i. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
ii. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
iii. Respondent’s <costaricascores.com> domain name, when queued into a web browser, resolves to a page that appears to be from an authorized and licensed SCORES gentlemen’s club even going so far as to utilize a logo identical to that used by Complainant’s duly authorized licensees.
i. The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
ii. Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website and physical location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location.
However, on April 2, 2014, Respondent sent an email to the Forum stating, formal parts omitted: “I am not sure what I am supposed to respond to exactly. I understand that someone is claiming that they own the site or rights to it, but I have no interest in the site. I am not part of any business that relates to the site and only own the domain. I do not believe that any arbitration is necessary and that whomever wants it, can have it. I have already told the domain registry, Godaddy.com, the same Please tell me how to best proceed.”
Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer
In the correspondence aforesaid, Respondent consents to transfer the <costaricascores.com> domain name to Complainant. However, after the initiation of this proceeding, GoDaddy.com, LLC placed a hold on Respondent’s account. As a result, the Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, it is appropriate that the Panel should forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <costaricascores.com> domain name. That approach has been followed in several UDRP decisions. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, the Panel will order an immediate transfer of the <costaricascores.com> domain name.
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 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) 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.
It is clear from the above decisions that such an analysis is not necessary where Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, as Respondent has done in the present case. Respondent has used the words in response to the Complaint , of which he had notice: ”I am not part of any business that relates to the site and only own the domain. I do not believe that any arbitration is necessary and that whomever wants it, can have it.” Those words can be interpreted only as an unequivocal consent by Respondent that the disputed domain name should be transferred to Complainant. As the Panel finds that these are the facts, the Panel also finds that this is an appropriate case to apply the conclusions and reasoning in the above decisions and in other decisions to the same effect, such as Citigroup Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates- NA NA ,FA0806001210904 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Aug. 5, 2008).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that it is unnecessary and inappropriate to make any other findings of fact or law and that it should proceed forthwith to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.
For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <costaricascores.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated: April 26, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page