Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2007-0400 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, June 03, 2007 (case Ox Ideas, Inc. v. Wan-Fu China, Ltd.)

• Judge: Ross Carson
• Resolution Date: June 03, 2007
• Issuing Organization: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
• Decision: Transfer
• Dominio: Generic Domains

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Ox Ideas, Inc. v. Wan-Fu China, Ltd.

Case No. D2007-0400

1. The Parties

   The Complainant is Ox Ideas, Inc., Miami, Florida, United States of America, represented by Weston, Garrou, Dewitt & Walters, United States of America.

   The Respondent is Wan-Fu China, Ltd., Nassau, of Bahamas.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

   The disputed domain names

   are respectively registered with

   Capitoldomains, LLC

   DomainDoorman, LLC

   BelgiumDomains, LLC

   DomainDoorman, LLC.

3. Procedural History

   The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 14, 2007. On March 19, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Capitoldomains, LLC, DomainDoorman, LLC, BelgiumDomains, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the respective domain names at issue.

   On March 19, 2007, Capitoldomains, LLC, DomainDoorman, LLC, and BelgiumDomains, LLC, transmitted by email to the Center their verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative and technical contact. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 19, 2007. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 19, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 9, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 10, 2007.

   The Center appointed Ross Carson as the sole panelist in this matter on May 22, 2007. 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

   Complainant is the owner of United States of America Reg. No. 2,810,145 for the trademark BANGBUS registered for entertainment services, namely providing adult entertainment photography and motion picture films on-line, registered on February 3, 2004. Complainant is also the owner of United States of America Reg. No. 2,923,488 for the trademark BANGBROS registered for entertainment services, namely providing images graphics, video, photographs and text in the field of adult entertainment via a global computer network, registered on February 1, 2005. Complainant also holds trademark rights to the trademark BANGBUS in international class 41 in the Benelux countries through international registration number 0894576. Complainant also holds trademark rights to the trademark BANGBUS in international class 41 in Australia and the European Union through international registration 907006. Complainant additionally holds trademark rights to the trademark BANGBROS in international class 41 in the Benelux countries through international registration number 905404. Complainant is the owner of trademark rights in the trademark BANGBROS in international class 41 in the European Union through international registration 905404.

5. Parties' Contentions

   1. Complainant

      A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar

      Complainant submits that the substance of the Respondent's domain names and the substance of the Complainant's trademarks are identical, except for the addition in the Respondent's domain names of generic terms...