Rockwell Automation v. Angelie Espinosa
Claim Number: FA2112001976678
Complainant is Rockwell Automation (“Complainant”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is Angelie Espinosa (“Respondent”), Philippines.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <allenbradleyphilippines.com>, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 10, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 10, 2021.
On December 13, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <allenbradleyphilippines.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 14, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 3, 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@allenbradleyphilippines.com. Also on December 14, 2021, 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.
Having received no official response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.
On January 10, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is the world’s largest automation company. Its most prominent brand, ALLEN-BRADLEY, was founded in 1903 and was already the leading automation manufacturer in North America before it was acquired by Complainant in 1985 for almost $1.7 billion. Today Complainant’s products are sold and distributed worldwide and Complainant has clients in over 80 countries, several of whom use Complainant’s carefully maintained and extensive authorized distribution network. Complainant and its ALLEN-BRADLEY brand achieved sales of $6.7 billion in Fiscal Year 2019. Complainant employs approximately 23,000 employees worldwide. Complainant has rights in the ALLEN-BRADLEY mark through its registrations with various trademark agencies throughout the world, including in the United States in 1961.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its ALLEN-BRADLEY mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the geographic term “Philippines” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its ALLEN-BRADLEY mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead purportedly offers Complainant’s goods for sale alongside competing goods. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business for commercial gain by offering Complainant’s goods for sale alongside other competing goods. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark, as shown by the disclaimer on the resolving website. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. It its email to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “It was an honest mistake as we were not aware of these domain rules. Apologize for the inconvenience the website has been taken down and the domain will not be renewed and will disappear from our account at the end of the current renewed date unless we will speak with Godaddy and see if the domain can be removed now then we will get it removed now. Hope this solves the problem.”
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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.
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."
The Panel interprets Respondent’s email to indicate consent to transfer the disputed domain name. Thus, in the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. 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 Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also 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 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.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <allenbradleyphilippines.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: January 11, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page