Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2016-2442 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, February 08, 2017 (case Fluke Corporation v. Proxy Protection LLC / Cheng Woon Ng)
| Resolution Date | February 08, 2017 |
| Issuing Organization | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center |
| Decision | Transfer |
| Dominio | Generic Domains |
The Complainant is Fluke Corporation of Everett, Washington, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Perkins Coie, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Proxy Protection LLC of Brea, California, United States of America / Cheng Woon Ng of Batu Pahat, Johore, Malaysia, self-represented.
The disputed domain name [flukemalaysia.com] (the “Domain Name”) is registered with DreamHost, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 2, 2016. On December 2, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 2, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 14, 2016 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amended Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 20, 2016.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint (hereinafter referred both together as 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 21, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 10, 2017. On January 8, 2017, the Respondent requested an extension of the Response due date. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(b), the Center extended the Response due date to January 14, 2017. The Response was filed with the Center on January 13, 2017.
The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on January 24, 2017. 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.
On January 25, 2017, the Complainant filed a supplemental filing in this matter indicating among others that the Domain Name use has changed since its Complaint submission, namely that it redirects to an unrelated website. This filing was sent by email to the Center and copied to the email address from which the Response was filed, the Respondent not having formally provided a contact email address in its response. On January 31, 2017, the Panel issued the following Panel Order:
“The Panel has agreed to accept the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing of January 24, 2017, therefore the Panel provides the Respondent with an opportunity to file a supplementary filing in response to the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing. The deadline for the reply by the Respondent is February 6, 2017.
The Panel also notes that the Affidavit of Yeo Cheng Ngee refers to, but does not contain an exhibit A. The Panel expects that such an exhibit, if it exists, be filed and served on the Respondent as soon as reasonably practicable.”
On January 31, 2017 the Complainant filed exhibit A to the affidavit of Yeo Cheng Ngee and on the same day sent a copy of exhibit A to the email address from which the Response was filed. On February 3, 2017, the Respondent contacted the Center and stated that it had not received the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing (despite the fact that the record shows that the supplemental filing was sent...
To continue reading
Request your trial