ITG Software Solutions, Inc. v. [Redacted]
Claim Number: FA1412001592947
Complainant is ITG Software Solutions, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Leo M. Loughlin of Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck P.C., District of Columbia, USA. Respondent’s personal information is redacted from this Decision.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <iitgcan.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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 2, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 2, 2014.
On December 3, 2014, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <iitgcan.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 4, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 24, 2014 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@iitgcan.com. Also on December 4, 2014, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 6, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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. Complainant owns the ITG mark through registration with numerous trademark agencies, including the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,581,518, registered Jun. 18, 2002), as well as the CIPO (Reg. No. TMA 631,868, registered Feb. 2, 2005). Complainant uses the ITG mark to identify its goods and services in the financial sector.
2. Complainant argues the <iitgcan.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the ITG mark, as the addition of the generic word “can” and the letter “i” does not dispel confusing similarity from the incorporated ITG mark.
3. Respondent’s efforts to defraud Complainant’s customers while posing as the CEO of Complainant’s Canadian branch demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <iitgcan.com> domain name.
4. The domain name was registered on October 31, 2014.
B. Respondent
Respondent’s communications to the Forum demonstrate that Respondent is the victim of identity theft, and that the actual identity of the registrant of the <iitgcan.com> domain name is unknown.
DECISION
According to Policy ¶ 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.” Consequently, the Panel determines that the circumstances of the present case, including the claim of identity theft by Respondent, warrant the redaction of Respondent’s information from the Panel’s decision.
In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the respondent’s personal information from the decision in an attempt to protect the respondent’ claiming to be victims of identity theft from any further injury. See also Nat’l Westminster Bank plc v. [Redacted], FA 724496 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 20, 2006). According to Policy ¶ 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.” Consequently, the Panel determines that the circumstances of the present case, including the Panel’s conclusion that the Respondent is the victim of identity theft, warrant the redaction of Respondent’s information from the Panel’s decision.
Respondent did not register the disputed domain name, but rather an unknown third-party using his or her identity registered the <iitgcan.com> domain name. The Panel finds that these circumstances of identity theft qualify as consent to transfer the disputed domain name from Respondent to Complainant. The Panel will forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. 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 (Nat Arb. 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 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).
Thus, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <iitgcan.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page