Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2000-0173 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, May 22, 2000 (case Europay International S.A. vs. Eurocard.com, Inc., EuroCard.org, and Chad Folkening)

• Judge: Robert A. Fashler
• Resolution Date: May 22, 2000
• Issuing Organization: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
• Decision: Transfer
• Dominio: Generic Domains

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Europay International S.A. v. Eurocard.com, Inc., EuroCard.org, and Chad Folkening

Case No. D 2000-0173

1. The Parties

   1.1 Complainant is a corporation headquartered in Belgium. Complainant is represented in this proceeding by Mr. Griffith B. Price, Jr. and Mr. B. Brett Heavner of the law firm Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.

   1.2 Respondents are Mr. Chad Folkening, Eurocard.com, Inc., and EuroCard.org. Mr. Folkening, Eurocard.com, Inc. and EuroCard.org all have the same address in the State of Indiana, United States of America. Complainant says that Mr. Folkening owns and controls the other Respondents. It is unclear whether Eurocard.com, Inc. and EuroCard.org are corporations, partnerships or trading styles.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

   2.1 This proceeding is concerned with the following domain names ("Domain Names"):

   2.2 The Domain Names are registered with Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), of Herndon, Virginia, United States of America.

   2.3 The Domain Name is registered in the name of Eurocard.com, Inc. The Domain Name is registered in the name of EuroCard.org. The records of NSI show that both registrants use the address 88 Rogers Rd., Carmel, Indiana, United States of America, 46632.

3. Procedural History

   3.1 This proceeding was initiated under and is being conducted pursuant to:

   (a) the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("Policy") adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") on August 26, 1999, and approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999;

   (b) the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules") adopted by ICANN on August 26, 1999, and approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999; and

   (c) the World Intellectual Property Organization Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy in effect as of December 1, 1999.

   3.2 The Complaint was received by the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") in electronic form on March 17, 2000, and in hard copy on March 21, 2000. As Rule 3(b) requires that complaints be filed in electronic and hard copy form, a complaint is not officially received until both versions have been received. In this case, the Complaint was officially received on March 21, 2000. On March 22, 2000, WIPO issued an Acknowledgement of Receipt to Complainant.

   3.3 Also on March 22, 2000, WIPO sent to NSI a Request for Registrar Verification. NSI issued verification on March 24, 2000.

   3.4 On March 28, 2000, WIPO sent a Complaint Deficiency Notification to Complainant advising that Complainant had failed to pay the required filing fee. On the same date, Complainant dispatched the filing fee to WIPO and sent an e-mail to WIPO confirming that the filing fee had been dispatched. Complainant's filing fee was received by WIPO on March 30, 2000.

   3.5 On April 2, 2000, WIPO completed its Formal Requirements Compliance Review and forwarded a Notification of Complaint to Respondents by courier and e-mail, with a copy to Complainant by e-mail.

   3.6 No Response was received by WIPO from Respondents within the time prescribed by Rule 5(a). On April 24, 2000, WIPO dispatched to Respondents a Notification of Respondent Default by e-mail, with a copy to Complainant by e-mail.

   3.7 On May 7, 2000, WIPO issued a Notification of Appointment of Administrative Panel and Projected Decision Date. Copies of that document were forwarded to Complainant and Respondents by e-mail.

   3.8 On May 10, 2000, WIPO received by facsimile transmission a letter dated May 9, 2000, from Mr. Jonathan G. Polak, a lawyer acting on behalf of Respondents. The letter referenced three separate UDRP proceedings administered by WIPO, including this one. The letter made the following requests:

   This communication is pursuant to Paragraph 3(a)(i) and (3)(c) of the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Specifically, we request an additional 30 days to respond to the allegations in these matters. We need additional time to investigate both the factual and legal issues concerning these matters and to prepare the appropriate responses. Please also note that our client only recently received a notice of these complaints.

   3.9 On May 12, 2000, the Panel denied Respondents' request for the following reasons:

   "The letter asserts that additional time is needed to investigate both the factual and legal issues and to prepare an appropriate response. The letter also says that the Respondent only received a notice of the Complaint, but it does not provide any details or explanation of the circumstances.

   Several paragraphs of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") are relevant to the Respondent's request, including Rules 5(d), 5(e), 10(c), 14(a), 14(b) and 15(b). The fundamental principle running through all those Rules is that both parties and the Panel will abide by the prescribed deadlines unless, in the discretion of the Panel, exceptional circumstances justify a variation from those deadlines.

   The Respondent has not demonstrated that there are any exceptional circumstances justifying any variation from the deadlines and other requirements established by the Rules. The Respondent's request comes approximately 17 days after the deadline for filing the Response. The Respondent requests a further 30 days for responding. It would take extraordinarily exceptional circumstances to justify the requested extension."

   3.10 Although the Panel denied Respondents' request to extend the deadline for filing a Response, Respondents proceeded to file a Response and to make additional submissions on whether or not Complainant had complied with procedural requirements.

   3.11 The Panel is electing not to allow the Response or any other representations, statements or submissions made by either party after May 12, 2000. However, the Panel will address an...