Marybono.net

The timeline behind marybono.net

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

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION The Mary Bono Committee v. Michael Grace Claim Number: FA0705000990456 PARTIES Complainant is The Mary Bono Committee (“Complainant”), represented by William B. Canfield, of Williams & Jensen, PLLC, Suite 300, 1155 Twenty-First Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036. Respondent is Michael Grace (“Respondent”), PO Box 5263, Palm Springs, CA 92263. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <marybono.net>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Carol M. Stoner, Esq., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 18, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 22, 2007. The Complaint was amended to annex documentary evidence, including a copy of the ICANN Policy and a schedule indexing such evidence. On May 21, 2007, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <marybono.net> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 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 24, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 13, 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@marybono.net by e-mail. A Response was received on May 29, 2007. The Response was deficient under ICANN Rule 5 as it was not received in hard copy. On June 4, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Carol M. Stoner, Esq., as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant alleges that the Mary Bono Committee is the principal campaign committee of Congresswoman Mary Bono (45th Cong. Dist. California) and is registered with and regulated by the Federal Election Committee, 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463. The Mary Bono Committee is the re-election committee for Congresswoman Mary Bono. In communicating with the public on matters involving the campaign, the committee employs the website <marybono.com> and this is the only website affiliated with the campaign. Complainant states that, on or about August 4, 2003, Complainant originally registered the domain name <marybono.net> with Network Solutions, LLC. In the summer of 2006, Complainant’s ability to use this domain name lapsed and Respondent obtained this domain name and informed the public in the website <desertpun.com> and the Mary Bono campaign committee, that Respondent intended to use the website to disparage Congresswoman Bono. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s intent was to leave the mis-impression that <marybono.net> was the official website for Congresswoman’s Bono re-election campaign. Complainant initiated a formal sworn complaint with the Federal Election Committee stating that Respondent failed to file with the Federal Election Committee as a federal political committee, which Complainant stated was required by Respondent’s actions in spending more than $1000.00 on a fraudulent weblog and in an indicated intent to create a <marybono.net> website. Complainant avers that Respondent’s principal intention in registering the domain name <marybono.net> was to tarnish the Congresswoman’s service mark. Complainant avers that Respondent sought, in an act of bad faith, to offer the domain name for sale at an inflated price. B. Respondent Respondent contends that Respondent contacted Complainant, but did not get a response, and that Respondent does not want the website <marybono.net> and that it was deleted by him last week. Respondent further states that Respondent would transfer the domain name to Mary Bono (not the fictitious and deceptive Daphne) but that Respondent can’t do that, as Respondent has no control over the site, which is in “legal limbo.” Respondent avers that Complainant’s staff failed to renew the domain name, and “all of this could have been avoided” if they had. Respondent declares that Respondent was going to use the site for political satire during the election year “exercising my First Amendment rights but have decided not to bother since the current government has left nothing to satirize–since the Bush administration and the Republican Party are a total very pathetic and sick joke that have ruined the U.S.A.” FINDINGS 1. Based upon the facts and arguments presented to it, the Panel finds that the electronic Response is sufficient, although it does not conform to ICANN’s Rule 5, which requires the Response to be in hard copy format. 2. The Response constitutes Respondent’s explicit consent to transfer the domain name to Complainant. 3. The Panel has ordered the transfer of the domain name <marybono.net> to Complainant, based upon Respondent’s explicit consent, and therefore the Panel will forego the traditional UDRP analysis. 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. Respondent’s Response consists solely of a series of e-mails, and thus, is not in compliance with ICANN’S Rule 5, which requires that the Response shall be submitted in hard copy. Although the Panel is under no obligation to accept this Response, the Panel has ruled that it will consider such material as being in the interest of justice, in order to prevent a default, and such consideration does not prejudice Complainant. The Panel has further determined that Respondent’s Response constitutes an explicit consent to transfer the disputed domain name, that is <marybono.net>. This explicit Response is an e-mail to the Forum and copied to Complainant’s attorney dated May 29, 2007, of which the second and fifth (ultimate) paragraphs are as follows: So this will confirm that I don’t want the website marybono.net. It was deleted by me last week. Although, the site is being held in some legal limbo with Network Solutions. I’d transfer it to Mary Bono (not the fictitious and deceptive Daphne) but can’t do that as I have no con- trol over the site. So let me, again, make it clear: I no longer own marybono.net and don’t want it and if Bono want’s it–she’s welcome to it. This is my response. Because the Panel has determined that the above Response qualifies as Respondent’s consent to transfer the disputed domain name, the Panel has decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and orders the immediate transfer of the <marybono.net> domain name to Complainant. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. - Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Arb. 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 Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 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 to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”). DECISION Having ruled that Respondent’s Response constitutes an explicit consent to transfer, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <marybono.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Carol M. Stoner, Esq. Panelist Dated: June 18, 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.