Westmore · UDRP DecisionJulbo.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <julbo.com> after the Respondent expressly consented to transfer. Relying on prior UDRP authority and WIPO Overview 2.0, section 4.13, the Panel concluded that genuine unilateral consent provided a basis for transfer without considering the three elements of paragraph 4(a). The order was made without findings adverse to the Respondent.
The timeline behind julbo.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind julbo.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates the consent-to-transfer route under which a panel may order transfer without adjudicating the three substantive UDRP elements. It is therefore useful as procedural authority but supplies no merits findings concerning trademark rights, legitimate interests, or bad faith.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Julbo SAS v. Private Registration, WhoisGuardService.com Case No. D2014-1183 1. The Parties The Complainant is Julbo SAS of Longchaumois, France, represented by Cabinet Pascale Lambert & Associés, France. The Respondent is Private Registration, WhoisGuardService.com of Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <julbo.com> is registered with Nanjing Imperiosus Technology Co. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 8, 2014. On July 8, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the registrar Internet.bs Corp. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 18, 2014, the registrar Internet.bs Corp. replied “the domain is not currently sponsored by our Registrar”. On July 21, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 31, 2014. On July 30, 2014, the Center sent an email communication to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On July 31, 2014, the Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date. The Center verified that the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on August 5, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 25, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 26, 2014. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on August 28, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. On September 1, 2014, the Complainant’s representatives sent an English language email communication to the Center, which was copied in on the Respondent, advising the Center that the Respondent had consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. On September 2, 2014, the Center sent an email communication to the parties, in Chinese and English language, advising that the Panel had requested the Respondent to confirm to the Center, by September 7, 2014, if it consented to an order for transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. On September 2, 2014, the Respondent sent an English language email communication to the Center, which was copied in on the Complainant, confirming that the Respondent consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. 4. Discussion and Findings As noted above, the Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. “[A] genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements” (See The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan , WIPO Case No. D2005-1132 . See also paragraph 4.13 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (WIPO Overview 2.0)). The Panel agrees with this approach. 5. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders, without making any findings adverse to the Respondent, that the disputed domain name <julbo.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Sebastian M. W. Hughes Sole Panelist Date: September 10, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around julbo.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.