The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.
According to the information provided by the Registrar upon the Request for Registrar Verification sent by Online ADR Center of the Czech Arbitration Court, the disputed domain names are registered by different Registrants(Respondents): i.e. Milena Cornick (US) is the Registrant of <cheapunderarmourbasketballoutlet.com> and Didi Dimtroff (UK) is the Registrant of <cheapunderarmourshoesoutlet.com>, <cheapunderarmourwomensshoes.com>, <underarmourmensshoessale.com>, <underarmourrunningshoesoutlet.com>, <underarmourshoesoutletsale.com>.
In the Amended Complaint the Complainant contends that “the disputed domain names are subject to an evident common control, thus making the consolidation of the dispute equitable and procedurally efficient”.
Under Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules) “A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”.
In the Panel’s view the Complainant submitted sufficient evidence to justify the consolidation in terms of common control of the domain names or corresponding websites and fairness and equitableness of the consolidation to all parties.
The Panel considers the consolidation as appropriate, taking into consideration the following factors: (1) in particular, the disputed domain names redirected to the same website (the content of the website corresponding to the disputed domain names give evidence of a common control of the domain names at issue); (2) the disputed domain names share similarities in relation to the name serves, and (3) they share the same identity shield and Registrar; (4) furthermore, there are irregularities in relation to the Registrant’s address disclosed for <cheapunderarmourshoesoutlet.com>, <cheapunderarmourwomensshoes.com>, <underarmourmensshoessale.com>, <underarmourrunningshoesoutlet.com>, <underarmourshoesoutletsale.com> (i.e. the address given does not exist in the UK, on the contrary a similar address exists in U.S.A., where the Registrant for <cheapunderarmourbasketballoutlet.com> is located). In addition, the phone numbers disclosed for both Registrants have the US prefix.
As specified in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) at point 4.11.2 “Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants’ contact information including email address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., <mark-country> or <mark-goods>), (vii) the relevant language/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue, (viii) any changes by the respondent relating to any of the above items following communications regarding the disputed domain name(s), (ix) any evidence of respondent affiliation with respect to the ability to control the disputed domain name(s), (x) any (prior) pattern of similar respondent behavior, or (xi) other arguments made by the complainant and/or disclosures by the respondent(s).
|