SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby's v. Irfan Yonac
Claim Number: FA0705000983028
PARTIES
Complainants are SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby's (collectively,
“Complainant”), represented by Sujata Chaudhri, of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.,
1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036-6799. Respondent is Irfan Yonac (“Respondent”), 37-55 77th. Street, Apt3F,
REGISTRAR AND
DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <sothebysdiamonds.net>, <sothebysdiamonds.info>, and <sothebysdiamonds.org>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.
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.
Robert T. Pfeuffer, Senior District Judge, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 14, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 16, 2007.
On May 15, 2007, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <sothebysdiamonds.net>, <sothebysdiamonds.info>, and <sothebysdiamonds.org> domain names are registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 6, 2007 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@sothebysdiamonds.net, postmaster@sothebysdiamonds.info and postmaster@sothebysdiamonds.org by e-mail.
A Response was received in electronic but not hard copy format on June 6, 2007. The National Arbitration Forum has thus concluded that the Response is deficient according to Supplemental Rule 5(a).
On
June 11, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Robert T. Pfeuffer, Senior District Judge,
as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
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 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;
(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.
The Response filed in this case was not received in hard copy and has therefore been found by the Forum that it does not consider this Response to be in compliance with ICANN Rule #5(a).
Rule #5(a) is set out below:
5. The Response
(a) Within twenty (20) days of the date of commencement of the administrative proceeding the Respondent shall submit a response to the Provider.
(b) The response shall be submitted in hard copy and (except to the extent not available for annexes) in electronic form. . .
While not obligated to do so, the Panel finds that the deficient Response should be considered. The Response was received in electronic form on June 6, 2007. The Panel considers the lack of a hard copy to be inconsequential under the circumstances of this case. It being within the Panel’s sole discretion whether or not to take the Response into account, the Panel chooses to do so. See Clear!Blue Holdings, L.L.C. v. NaviSite, Inc., FA 888071 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (deciding to consider the respondent’s response even though it was deficient because it provided useful information to the panel in making its decision); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Secure Whois Info. Serv., FA 910715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2007) (deeming any procedural deficiencies to be inconsequential and deciding to consider the response, which was only received in hard copy before the deadline).
The Panel takes notice that Respondent
has cancelled the domain name registrations and provides a brief Response in
which it states that it has already cancelled its registrations for the domain
names in dispute. Respondent has
provided screen shots from Yahoo! Small Business confirming its cancellations
of all three contested domain names. Therefore,
the Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has
admitted that it does not have a past, present or future interest in the
disputed domain names and has apparently already ceded ownership of them, the
Panel has decided it is prudent to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and
order the immediate transfer of the <sothebysdiamonds.net>,
<sothebysdiamonds.info>, and
<sothebysdiamonds.org> domain
names. See
DECISION
In accordance with the findings set out above, the Panel concludes that all relief prayed for by Complainant shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sothebysdiamonds.net>, <sothebysdiamonds.info>, and <sothebysdiamonds.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
ROBERT T. PFEUFFER,
Senior District Judge, Panelist
Dated: June 19, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum