Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Dan
Willett d/b/a Willett Consulting
Claim Number: FA0605000705263
PARTIES
Complainant is Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by J. Andrew Coombs, of J. Andrew Coombs, A Professional Corporation, 450 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 600, Glendale, CA 91203-2349. Respondent is Dan Willett d/b/a Willett Consulting (“Respondent”), 301 Camp Road, Milner, GA 30257.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tweetybird.org>,
registered with Bulk Register.
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.
David S. Safran, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on May 12, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard
copy of the Complaint on May 15, 2006.
On May 15, 2006, Bulk Register confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the <tweetybird.org>
domain name is registered with Bulk Register and that the Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. Bulk
Register has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bulk Register
registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes
brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On May 17, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of June 6, 2006 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@tweetybird.org by e-mail.
A Response was received on June 6, 2006 in electronic form only. Thus, the Forum considers this Response
deficient, as it is not in compliance with ICANN Rule #5 (a).
On June 12, 2006, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed David S. Safran as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
Complaint
has alleged that the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has
rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of
the domain name; and that the domain name has been registered and is being used
in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent
has provided a Response asserting that it is not the owner of the domain name
and has no interest in the domain name.
Respondent also claims that the domain name registration for the
disputed domain name is expired, and
Respondent has no control over the domain name.
Respondent does not contest any of
Complainant’s allegations regarding the <tweetybird.org> domain name.
FINDINGS
Respondent does not contest any of
Complainant’s allegations regarding the <tweetybird.org> domain name.
The Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where
Respondent has admitted that it does not have a present or future interest in
the disputed domain name and has not contested Complainant’s assertions, the
Panel may infer Respondent’s consent to transfer of the disputed domain name,
forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the
domain name. 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”).
DECISION
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel concludes that relief shall
be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tweetybird.org>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David S. Safran, Panelist
Dated: June 26, 2006
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum