Teledyne Technologies Incorporated v. Raphael Schieferstein
Claim Number: FA2102001931835
Complainant is Teledyne Technologies Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Zoetewey of Teledyne Technologies Incorporated, California, USA. Respondent is Raphael Schieferstein (“Respondent”), Germany.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <teledyne-flir.com>, registered with 1&1 IONOS SE.
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.
Steven M. Levy, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 11, 2021; the Forum received payment on February 11, 2021.
On February 15, 2021, 1&1 IONOS SE confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <teledyne-flir.com> domain name is registered with 1&1 IONOS SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1&1 IONOS SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1&1 IONOS SE 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 February 22, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 15, 2021 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@teledyne-flir.com. Also on February 22, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 24, 2021.
On February 24, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Steven M. Levy, 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, Teledyne Technologies Incorporated, provides products such as monitoring and control instrumentation for a variety of markets such as deep water oil and gas exploration and production, oceanographic research, air and water quality environmental monitoring, factory automation, and medical imaging. Complainant has rights in the trademark TELEDYNE based upon its use in commerce starting in 1951 and its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in 1956. Respondent’s <teledyne-flir.com> domain name, which was registered on January 4, 2021, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEDYNE mark because it completely subsumes the mark and adds non-distinctive elements.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <teledyne-flir.com> domain name because Respondent is not licensed to use the Complainant’s TELEDYNE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent doesn’t use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent displays a parked page at the disputed domain.
Respondent registered and uses the <teledyne-flir.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent fails to host an active non-infringing webpage at disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent registered the disputed domain with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TELEDYNE mark.
B. Respondent
Although Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding, it did send an email to the Forum stating:
For sure, we want to provide Teledyne with the following Ethernet domains, and make them available.
teledyne-flir.com
teledyneflir.com
With this, I would like to confirm, that at no time there was the approach to block these domains, I never had the intension to archive an financl advantage, or to block any business.
More to avoid, that somebody will take an malicious action.
I would like to appologies for this discomfort.
Respondent has consented to a transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: RESPONDENT’S CONSENT TO TRANSFER
The Forum received an email from Respondent after having served it with the Complainant. In it, Respondent consents to voluntarily transfer the <teledyne-flir.com> domain name to Complainant. As a result, the Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name to Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <teledyne-flir.com> 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 its email to the Forum, Respondent states: “For sure, we want to provide Teledyne with the following Ethernet domains, and make them available. teledyne-flir.com”. Therefore, the Panel has determined that it is not necessary to analyze the present case under the elements of the UDRP and it may be ordered that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant upon the Respondent’s voluntary consent.
The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <teledyne-flir.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Steven M. Levy, Esq., Panelist
Dated: February 25, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page