Michelinstarrestaurants.net

The timeline behind michelinstarrestaurants.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 Michelin North America, Inc. v. Steve O'Connor Claim Number: FA1210001466147 PARTIES Complainant is Michelin North America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Neil M. Batavia of Dority & Manning, Attorneys at Law, P.A., South Carolina, USA. Respondent is Steve O'Connor (“Respondent”), United Kingdom. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <michelinstarrestaurants.net>, registered with eNom, Inc. 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. The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 7, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 9, 2012. On October 8, 2012, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <michelinstarrestaurants.net> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 October 10, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 30, 2012 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@michelinstarrestaurants.net. Also on October 10, 2012, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 9, 2012 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1.Complainant has rights in the MICHELIN mark, used in connection with tires as well as travel and a restaurant rating system called Michelin Star. The MICHELIN mark (Reg. No. 1,399,361 registered July 1, 1986) is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). 2.The <michelinstarrestaurants.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the MICHELIN mark. Respondent simply took Complainant’s mark and added the descriptive terms “star” and “restaurants” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net” to create the disputed domain name. 3.Respondent is not commonly known by the <michelinstarrestaurants.net> domain name, as demonstrated by the WHOIS record. 4.The <michelinstarrestaurants.net> domain name is not being used for either a bona fide offering or goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name is being passively held by Respondent. 5.Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MICHELIN mark when Respondent registered the <michelinstarrestaurants.net> domain name. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, Respondent did send the Forum an e-mail, received on October 26, 2012. In this e-mail Respondent notes that it does not dispute the domain name, has no intention of using the domain name and is happy to transfer the domain name to Complainant. FINDINGS The Panel will not make any findings of fact in view of the circumstances explained below. DISCUSSION On October 26, 2012, The National Arbitration Forum received an e-mail from Respondent in which Respondent purports to consent to the transfer of the <michelinstarrestaurants.net> domain name. Respondent is therefore consenting to transfer the <michelinstarrestaurants.net> domain name to Complainant. However, after the initiation of this proceeding, eNom, Inc. placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain name while this proceeding is still pending. As a result, the Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel may and in the present proceeding is of the view that it should decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <michelinstarrestaurants.net> domain name. 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 established and determined that the requests of the parties in this case are identical, in that the Respondent does not contest Complainant’s remedy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <michelinstarrestaurants.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC Panelist Dated: November 10, 2012 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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