Hakkasan Limited v. DANIEL SNEDDON
Claim Number: FA1609001694135
Complainant is Hakkasan Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Lauri S. Thompson of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Nevada, USA. Respondent is DANIEL SNEDDON (“Respondent”), Australia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hakkasanbali.com>, registered with Crazy Domains FZ-LLC.
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 September 16, 2016; the Forum received payment on September 16, 2016.
On September 18, 2016, Crazy Domains FZ-LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hakkasanbali.com> domain name is registered with Crazy Domains FZ-LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Crazy Domains FZ-LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Crazy Domains FZ-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 September 19, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 11, 2016 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@hakkasanbali.com. Also on September 19, 2016, 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 meeting the requirements of the Policy and its attendant Rules, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 19, 2016, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Doing business under the name and mark HAKKASAN, Complainant is a restaurant, nightlife, and hospitality company that owns and operates, either directly or through its subsidiaries, multiple restaurant and nightclub venues around the world.
Complainant holds a registration for the HAKKASAN mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 3,789,248, registered on May 18, 2010.
Respondent registered the domain name <hakkasanbali.com> on or about November 17, 2015.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HAKKASAN mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to use the HAKKASAN mark.
Respondent fails to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name or to make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it.
The website resolving from the domain name features links to third party websites unrelated to Complainant’s business, and, without its permission, to Complainant’s own websites.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent registered the domain name while knowing of Complainant and its rights in the HAKKASAN mark.
Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, in an e-mail message addressed to the Forum, Respondent has recited as follows:
I’m happy to… transfer the domain to them if that’s what they want…. I’d like to give up the domain without a fight.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following in order to obtain from a Panel a decision 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 same domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, 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 [by the parties] 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 (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 Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum Jun. 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 [sic] to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.
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 name be transferred to Complainant. Rather, in light of Complainant’s demand that the domain name be transferred to it, Respondent has expressed in writing its willingness to surrender it. Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.
It is therefore Ordered that the <hakkasanbali.com> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: October 20, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page