Case number | CAC-ADREU-006418 |
---|---|
Time of filing | 2013-05-23 10:22:22 |
Domain names | oasisgroup.eu |
Case administrator
Lada Válková (Case admin) |
---|
Complainant
Organization | Claire Gallagher (Oasis Group) |
---|
Respondent
Organization | T J Whelan (Prosalis) |
---|
Insert information about other legal proceedings the Panel is aware of which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name
The Panel has not been informed of any legal proceedings in relation to the disputed domain name
Factual Background
The Complainant is Oasis Group, Dublin, Ireland. The Complainant offers what it describes as Records & Information Management (RIM). The Complainant is the holder of a CTM registration of the figurative mark OASIS GROUP OF COMPANIES.
The Respondent, Prosalis, also of Dublin, Ireland is a service provider that offers various services within the it-sector such as managed services.
After the notification of the Complaint to the Respondent, both the Respondent and the Complainant have filed additional submissions ("non-standard communications") and the Panel has decided to accept them and thus take them into consideration when making its decision.
The Respondent, Prosalis, also of Dublin, Ireland is a service provider that offers various services within the it-sector such as managed services.
After the notification of the Complaint to the Respondent, both the Respondent and the Complainant have filed additional submissions ("non-standard communications") and the Panel has decided to accept them and thus take them into consideration when making its decision.
A. Complainant
Prosalis is an IT support provider to Oasis Group and registered oasisgroup.eu on behalf of Oasis Group. Oasis Group uses the domain name for all websites and email communication.
In mid 2011, Prosalis was replaced as an IT provider to Oasis Group. Since then, Prosalis has refused to authorise transfer requests for oasisgroup.eu and has not responded to correspondence, emails or phone calls. Numerous transfer requests have been made and each of them has expired without Prosalis authorising it.
The specific complaint is that Prosalis registered the domain oasisgroup.eu on behalf of Oasis Group, it does not have any claim to ownership of the domain, and there is no reason why it should not authorise the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant´s registrar as has been requested.
In mid 2011, Prosalis was replaced as an IT provider to Oasis Group. Since then, Prosalis has refused to authorise transfer requests for oasisgroup.eu and has not responded to correspondence, emails or phone calls. Numerous transfer requests have been made and each of them has expired without Prosalis authorising it.
The specific complaint is that Prosalis registered the domain oasisgroup.eu on behalf of Oasis Group, it does not have any claim to ownership of the domain, and there is no reason why it should not authorise the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant´s registrar as has been requested.
B. Respondent
Respondent seems to acknowledge that the disputed domain name was registered by it on behalf of the Complainant. The submissions made by the Respondent, however, do not make it absolutely clear to the Panel why the domain name was registered in the name of the Respondent and why the transfer has not been authorised.
Discussion and Findings
On 22 May 2013, that is 12 days after the submission of the case to the Panel, the parties filed a joined non-standard communication which referred to the content of an attached letter signed by both parties.
In this letter it is said:
"Following discussion between our companies, it has been mutually acknowledged and agreed that Oasis Group has been and is the rightful owner of the domain oasisgroup.eu.
Both parties want the ADR to take this agreement into account when you decide on the case and to order the transfer of oasisgroup.eu to Oasis Group."
On this background and since a decision on the merits of the case would have been properly within the ADR policy and rules, the Panel has no reluctance to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. See to this effect the Panel Decision in Case 05776 RUSSELLATHLETIC.
In this letter it is said:
"Following discussion between our companies, it has been mutually acknowledged and agreed that Oasis Group has been and is the rightful owner of the domain oasisgroup.eu.
Both parties want the ADR to take this agreement into account when you decide on the case and to order the transfer of oasisgroup.eu to Oasis Group."
On this background and since a decision on the merits of the case would have been properly within the ADR policy and rules, the Panel has no reluctance to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. See to this effect the Panel Decision in Case 05776 RUSSELLATHLETIC.
Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that
the domain name OASISGROUP.EU be transferred to the Complainant.
the domain name OASISGROUP.EU be transferred to the Complainant.
PANELISTS
Name | Knud Wallberg |
---|
Date of Panel Decision
2013-05-23