ADP, LLC v. Grace Miller / Streamline Project Solutions, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1708001743477
Complainant is ADP, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Susan E. Hollander of Venable LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Grace Miller / Streamline Project Solutions, Inc. (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <streamlinesolutionsinc.net>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 7, 2017; the Forum received payment on August 7, 2017.
On August 8, 2017, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <streamlinesolutionsinc.net> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. 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 August 10, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 30, 2017 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@streamlinesolutionsinc.net. Also on August 10, 2017, 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 response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 31, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <streamlinesolutionsinc.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADP STREAMLINE and STREAMLINE marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <streamlinesolutionsinc.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <streamlinesolutionsinc.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds a registration for its STREAMLINE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,776,906, July 21, 2015) and for its ADP STREAMLINE mark (Reg. No. 3,416,241, April 22, 2008); both Registrations show First Use Dates of October 31, 2005. Complainant uses the marks in connection with a broad range of services, including software in the field of human resources and payroll. The marks are also registered in other countries around the world.
Respondent registered the <streamlinesolutionsinc.net> domain name on September 27, 2006; the domain name resolves to an error message. Respondent consents to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant.
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.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Consent to Transfer
The Panel notes a document submitted from Respondent to Complainant, wherein Respondent consents to the transfer of the <streamlinesolutionsinc.net> domain name to Complainant. Where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name and agrees to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of <streamlinesolutionsinc.net>. 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.”). Since Respondent consents to the transfer, the Panel finds that it is prudent in this case to order the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name from Respondent to Complainant.
The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <streamlinesolutionsinc.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 5, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page