Carnival Plc v. GNO, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0706000997923
Complainant is Carnival Plc (“Complainant”), represented by Brett
A. August, of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard
& Geraldson LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <queenelizabeth2.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc.
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.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 1, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 4, 2007.
On
On June 5, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 25, 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@queenelizabeth2.com by e-mail.
Respondent filed a Submission under NAF Supplemental Rule 7. Thereafter, Complainant filed an Additional Response. Both of these documents were considered by the Panel as hereinafter discussed.
On June 28, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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." 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <queenelizabeth2.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s QUEEN ELIZABETH 2 mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <queenelizabeth2.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <queenelizabeth2.com> domain name in bad faith.
Neither the Policy, the Rules, nor the NAF Supplemental Rules mandate that the Panel refrain from issuing a decision on the merits merely because Respondent has stipulated to the transfer of the Infringing Domain Name.
B. Respondent makes the following assertions:
Prior to expiration of the Response period, Respondent transmitted its request to have the domain name transferred to Complainant to the Forum and Complainant. Proceedings under the UDRP are a mandatory administrative procedure incorporated into the domain registration contract which is entered into between a domain registrant and a domain registrar. Proceedings under the UDRP are not arbitrations under the Federal Arbitration Act, and are not legal proceedings. The aim of the Policy is to provide for the prompt resolution of domain name / trademark conflicts. As a contractual term between the registrant and the registrar, the UDRP is made effective by the consent of the domain registrant. Where, as here, the registrant consents to the transfer of the domain name, and where Complainant has initially requested transfer of the domain name via the UDRP, then the mutual aim of the parties should be made effective by transfer of the domain name in accordance with the consent of the domain registrant.
Complainant, Carnival Plc, is a large cruise company and one of the largest leisure travel companies in the world. In connection with the provision of these services, Complainant has registered a number of trade and service marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) including the QUEEN ELIZABETH 2 mark (Reg. No. 1,501,896 issued August 30, 1988).
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on
Even where the respondent defaults the complainant must
establish a “prima facia” case establishing all three of the elements set forth
in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. The
Panel is satisfied that Complainant has done this. However, Respondent
has submitted a Response in which Respondent expressly stipulates and agrees
that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. Accordingly, where Respondent has
expressly agreed to transfer the disputed domain name as requested by
Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and
order the immediate transfer of the domain name. See The Royal Bank of Scot. Group plc v.
rbspayments, FA 728805 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (transferring the
<rbspayments.com> domain name where the respondent agreed to the transfer
and did not contest any of the complainant’s allegations); see also
Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625
(Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant having made out a prima facia case establishing all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, and Respondent having consented, the Panel concludes that the relief requested by Complainant should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <queenelizabeth2.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated:
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum