Microsoft Corporation v. NATAN DEKKER / NONE
Claim Number: FA1506001624901
Complainant is Microsoft Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is NATAN DEKKER / NONE (“Respondent”), Israel.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <skypemac.com>, <skypeforblackberry.org>, <skypeforpc.com>, and <minecraftpc.com>, registered with eNom, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 17, 2015; the Forum received payment on June 17, 2015.
On June 18, 2015, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <skypemac.com>, <skypeforblackberry.org>, <skypeforpc.com>, and <minecraftpc.com> domain names are registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. 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 June 19, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 9, 2015 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@skypemac.com, postmaster@skypeforblackberry.org, postmaster@skypeforpc.com, postmaster@minecraftpc.com. Also on June 19, 2015, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 16, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant uses the SKYPE mark in the marketing of its real time instant messaging service and Internet voice communication technology.
Complainant holds a registration for the SKYPE service mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 3,005,039, registered October 4, 2005.
Respondent registered the <skypemac.com> domain name on June 28, 2012.
Respondent registered the <skypeforblackberry.org> and <skypeforpc.com> domain names on April 14, 2012.
The <skypemac.com>, <skypeforblackberry.org>, and <skypeforpc.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKYPE mark.
Complainant uses the MINECRAFT mark to identify its best-selling PC game.
Complainant holds a registration for the MINECRAFT trademark, which is on file with the USPTO as Registry No. 4,252,394, registered December 4, 2012.
Complainant also has common law rights in the MINECRAFT mark dating from its first use in commerce in May of 2009.
Respondent registered the <minecraftpc.com> domain name on April 27, 2012.
The <minecraftpc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MINECRAFT mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by any of the domain names or by Complainant’s SKYPE or MINECRAFT marks.
Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The landing page for the <skypemac.com> domain name resolves to a website carrying advertisements for a product called “MacKeeper,” from the operation of which Respondent presumably gains click-through revenue.
Such advertisements, when accessed by unsuspecting Internet users, are known to infect such users’ computers with malware viruses.
The <skypeforblackberry.org>, and <skypeforpc.com> domain names resolve to parked pages which display click-through commercial hyperlinks for businesses unrelated to Complainant.
The <minecraftpc.com> domain name resolves to a website that displays Complainant’s MINECRAFT mark and offers a download which is apparently a source of malware.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in any of the contested domain names.
Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the SKYPE and MINECRAFT marks when it registered each of the contested domain names.
Respondent has registered and is using the domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding which is compliant with the requirements of the Policy and its associated Rules. However, in an e-mail message addressed to the National Arbitration Forum, Respondent has declared as follows: “…. I wish to resolve this amicable [sic], I am inactive with these domains and I only wish to let them go and not confront with you on this matter….”
¶ 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, ¶ 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.”
Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions (see, for example, Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Ar. Forum Jan. 13, 2004; see also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 24, 2005)).
DECISION
Respondent does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, and, in particular it does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain names be transferred to Complainant. Rather Respondent has indicated in a written communication to the Forum its intention that the disputed domain names be released to Complainant. Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the subject domain names from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: July 24, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page