About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Frutarom Netherlands B.V. v. Mr. Frode Bohan

Case No. D2013-1273

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Frutarom Netherlands B.V. of Ede, Netherlands, represented by GEVERS MARKS, Belgium.

The Respondent is Mr. Frode Bohan of Oslo, Norway, represented by Malgorzata Sierdzinska, Poland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <unik2.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 15, 2013. On July 15, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 16, 2013, 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.

The Center verified that the 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 proceedings commenced on July 23, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 12, 2013. The Response was filed with the Center on August 12, 2013.

The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on August 23, 2013. 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.

4. Factual Background

The disputed domain name was registered on November 25, 2010.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant is a flavor and fine ingredients company which is selling products in the food industry under the trademark UNIK2. The Complainant alleged that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant had rights, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, under the provisions of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent’s legal representative made a “unilateral consent to transfer” the disputed domain name to the Complainant, and drew the Panel’s attention to the decision in The Cartoon Network LLP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2005-1132.

6. Discussion and Findings

In The Cartoon Network LLP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2005-1132, the panel considered that 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, and where the complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name and the respondent consents to transfer, then, pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules, a panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer. The Panel in this case agrees with the reasoning of the panel in The Cartoon Network LLP, LLLP, Supra and, in the circumstances of the present case, where a Complaint was filed by the Complainant while negotiations between the parties were taking place, considers it appropriate to find that, a genuine unilateral consent to transfer having been made by the Respondent, the Panel can proceed, under paragraph 10 of the Rules, to make an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements, which the Panel so does.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <unik2.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: September 10, 2013

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/