Sothebysdiamonds.net, Sothebysdiamonds.info, Sothebysdiamonds.org

The timeline behind sothebysdiamonds.net

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION 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, Jackson Heights, NY 11372. 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 Tex. Med. Ctr. v. Spinder, FA 886496 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (foregoing the traditional Policy analysis where the respondent stipulated to the transfer of the disputed domain names to the complainant); see also Richard Simon Jocelyn Peter Adams v. Truth About Jos, FA 907564 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2007) (concluding that when a respondent stipulates to the transfer of the disputed domain name in its response or expresses a willingness to transfer the disputed domain name to the complainant, the panel can forego an analysis of the Policy and order the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Secure Whois Info. Serv., FA 910715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2007) (“In light of Respondent’s request that the Panel enter an order transferring the disputed domain name to Complainant without findings of fact on the elements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, and the lack of any objection thereto, the Panel declines to set forth or address the Parties’ contentions.”). 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

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.