Trust Codes Ltd v. Gennady Volchek
Claim Number: FA1603001668114
Complainant is Trust Codes Ltd (“Complainant”), New Zealand. Respondent is Gennady Volchek (“Respondent”), represented by Sarah Broome of Gadens Lawyers, Australia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <trustcodes.org>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 30, 2016; the Forum received payment on March 30, 2016.
On April 4, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <trustcodes.org> 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 April 11, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 2, 2016 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@trustcodes.org. Also on April 11, 2016, 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 May 1, 2016.
On May 9, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 has operated <trust.codes> since April of 2014 and has subsequently filed for registration of the TRUST CODES mark with the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office (IP No. 1,040,223, filed Mar. 31, 2016). Complainant’s trademark application is currently pending. Respondent’s <trustcodes.org> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while eliminating the space in the mark, adding the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.org.”
Complainant contends Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the <trustcodes.org> domain name. Respondent operates a website that offers services that compete with Complainant. Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant through the disputed domain name by copying the look and feel of Complainant’s resolving website.
Complainant contends Respondent has registered <trustcodes.org> in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s legitimate business interest by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent’s webpage. Respondent is attempting to capitalize on Internet user confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the <trustcodes.org> domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent denies Complainant’s Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) arguments, but does not make any contentions or provide any evidence to rebut Complainant’s position.
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Respondent states its willingness and agreement to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant.
Respondent denies Complainant’s Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) arguments, but does not make any contentions or provide any evidence to rebut Complainant’s position.
Respondent consents to the transfer. Thus, no further findings under the UDRP policy are made.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Consent to Transfer
Respondent consents to transfer the domain names to Complainant. Where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain names but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel foregoes the traditional UDRP analysis and orders an immediate transfer of the <trustcodes.org> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (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 (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 (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.”).
In light of Respondent’s agreement to transfer, the Panel makes no specific findings under the UDRP Policy.
Respondent, having consented to transfer, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <trustcodes.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David P. Miranda, Esq., Panelist
Dated: May 26, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page