WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center



Infonxx.Inc v. Lou Kerner, WildSites.com

Case No. D2008-0434


1. The Parties

The Complainant is Infonxx.Inc, of New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Sofer & Haroun LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is Lou Kerner, WildSites.com, of North Hollywood, California, United States of America, represented by Renova, Ltd., Spain.


2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <infonxxx.com> is registered with eNom.


3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 19, 2008. On March 25, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 25, 2008, eNom transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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 proceedings commenced on April 2, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 22, 2008. A Response was filed with the Center on April 25, 2008.

The Center appointed William R. Towns as the sole panelist in this matter on May 5, 2008. 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.

The Panel issued an Administrative Procedural Panel Order on May 9, 2008, to which the Complainant filed a supplemental response on May 15, 2008. The time for the Panel to forward its decision to the Center was extended under paragraph 15(b) of the Rules until May 26, 2008.


4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a leading provider of directory assistance and related information services. The Complainant obtained a United States of America trademark registration for INFONXX in International Class 35 for use in connection with telephone directory information services on July 9, 1996 (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 1,986,228).1 The Complainant has used the mark since as early as August 1994.

The Complainant is seeking the transfer of the domain name <infonxxx.com>, which the Respondent registered on or about September 27, 2004. The Respondent has expressly stipulated to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant without consideration of the elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. In its Supplemental Filing, the Complainant also has stipulated to the transfer of the disputed domain name on this basis.


5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its INFONXX mark, and contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. The Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent denies that it has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, but expressly stipulates and requests that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant without findings under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.


6. Discussion and Findings

The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store, WIPO Case No. D2002-0774. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of this Panel is limited to providing a remedy in cases of “the abusive registration of domain names”, also known as “cybersquatting”. Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware, WIPO Case No. D2000-0187. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred:

(i) The domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name; and

(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

However, this Panel considers that a genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. As was noted by the Panel in The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2005-1132, when the Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, the Panel may proceed immediately to make an order for transfer pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules. Accordingly, and in light of the parties’ stipulations set forth above, the Panel will order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. This is clearly the most expeditious course. Id.; Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207.


7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <infonxxx.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

William R. Towns
Sole Panelist

Dated: May 26, 2008

1 Complaint, Annex 3. The Complainant has assigned the registration to Grape Technology Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Complainant, which has consented to the Complainant’s bringing of this proceeding in its own behalf. Complainant’s Supplemental Filing in Response to Procedural Order, Exhibit B (Consent Agreement, Nunc Pro Tunc).