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.
The Panel notes and welcomes the inclusion in the Complaint (and an Annex) of a statement from the above-mentioned joint venture confirming the appropriateness of the Complaint being made by the Complainant (one of the two parties to the venture) and the agreement, which is consistent with the existing terms between the parties (where the Complainant is the registrant of pertinent domain names), that if transfer was to be ordered by this Panel, such transfer would be in favour of the Complainant.
This is material information because, in the absence of such information, various panels have ruled differently as regards whether the appropriate remedy is transfer or cancellation. (See the analysis in Bettinger and Waddell, Domain Name Law and Practice: An International Handbook, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 2015, para IIIE.257; see further the reviews of authorities, confined to decisions of the WIPO AMC, in WIPO Case No. D2016-2194, Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / MARK JAYSON DAVID, <PALLMALL-MARLBORO.COM> and WIPO Case No. D2015-1507,Kabbage, Inc. v. Oneandone Private Registration et al, <KABBAGEFUND.COM>. However, where a complaint is brought jointly, or where the appropriate written consent is included in a complaint, it is normally appropriate, without difficulty, for transfer to be the most appropriate remedy (where requested by the complainant).
|