DECISION

 

Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. wan dun

Claim Number: FA2204001994463

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers and David J. Diamond of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA.  Respondent is wan dun (“Respondent”), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <amztrial.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd..

 

PANEL

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.

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 29, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 29, 2022.

 

On May 4, 2022, Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <amztrial.com> domain name (the Domain Name) is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 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 May 5, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of May 25, 2022 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@amztrial.com.  Also on May 5, 2022, the Chinese language 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.

 

Having received no Response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On June 2, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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.  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES:  

Language of Proceeding

According to the Registrar, the registration agreement for the Domain Name is written in the Chinese language.  Rule 11(a) provides that the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case.  Complainant filed its Complaint in English and requests that this proceeding be conducted in English.  Factors which previous panels have seen as important include evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, the language of the domain name, the content on any web pages resolving from the domain name, prior correspondence between the parties, and potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering translation of the pleadings and the Decision.  WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 4.5.1, The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language), Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”). 

 

As stated above, Complainant filed its Complaint in English, but the Written Notice of the Complaint, written in both Chinese and English, was served upon Respondent in accordance with Rules 1 and 2.  The web pages to which the Domain Name resolves are written exclusively in English (screenshots submitted as Complaint Exhibit K).  Also, shortly after receiving its copy of the Complaint, Respondent sent an email to the Forum written entirely in English.  It thus appears that Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language.  Inasmuch as neither Complainant nor the Panel is proficient in Chinese, proceeding in that language would involve substantial additional expense and delay for translation.  Under these circumstances the Panel finds that the additional time and expense of proceeding in Chinese would be unwarranted and determines that this proceeding will be conducted in English.

 

Respondent Consent to Transfer Domain Name

Shortly after serving the Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent the Forum received an email message from a person, apparently the Respondent or someone acting on his behalf, who explained the history of his registration and use of the Domain Name since 2020, stated that he had ceased using it, and concluded with the following:

 

I don’t have the money to hire a lawyer to do this, and I don’t want to spend too much time and energy on this issue, but the domain name amztrial, I don’t need it, it can be deregistered.

 

While not meeting the technical requirements for a formal Response provided by Rule 5(c), the Respondent’s message appears to be authentic and indicates a willingness for the Domain Name to be transferred to Complainant. 

As required by Policy ¶ 8(a), upon notice of the commencement of this proceeding, the registrar placed a hold on Respondent’s account.  Respondent therefore cannot transfer the Domain Name while this proceeding is pending.  Under these circumstances, where Respondent does not contest the transfer of the Domain Name but instead consents to a transfer to Complainant, the Panel may forego a traditional Policy analysis and order an immediate transfer of the Domain Name.  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), 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.”), 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”).  The Panel elects to adopt this approach and will order the transfer of the Domain Name without a Policy analysis.

 

DECISION

In light of Respondent’s consent to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant, the Panel concludes that that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <amztrial.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED to Complainant.

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

Dated:  June 3, 2022