S&C Electric Company v. sandc india / [redacted]
Claim Number: FA1412001592719
Complainant is S&C Electric Company (“Complainant”), represented by Craig A. Beaker of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is sandc india / [redacted] (“Respondent”); the domain’s web service provider was represented by Ankur Raheja, India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sandcindia.com>, registered with Godaddy.Com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
David S. Safran as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 1, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 1, 2014.
On December 2, 2014, Godaddy.Com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <sandcindia.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.Com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.Com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.Com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 2, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 22, 2014 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@sandcindia.com. Also on December 2, 2014, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 22, 2014.
On December 30, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David S. Safran as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that the domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it holds rights and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent and true party in interest is SandC India and since Respondent did not pay required fees, the WhoIs information incorrectly names the Respondent’s Intermediary web service provider. Since Respondent’s Intermediary is not the true party in interest, its name has been redacted from the caption of this decision and is not mentioned elsewhere in this decision for its protection, being merely referred to as Respondent’s Intermediary.
Respondent’s Intermediary asserts that it was totally unaware of the actions of SandC India and had no knowledge of Complainant prior to filing of the Complaint. Furthermore, Respondent’s Intermediary states that it has been unsuccessful in its attempts to contact SandC India after receipt of the Complaint, and agrees to the requested transference of the domain.
Respondent’s Intermediary consents to transfer the domain name to Complainant. As a result, the Panel finds that, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name, but instead agrees to transfer, the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel can forego the traditional UDRP analysis and can order an immediate transfer of the <sandcindia.com> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”). Therefore, the Panel has decided to forgo analyzing the case under the elements of the UDRP.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sandcindia.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David S. Safran, Panelist
Dated: January 2, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page