DECISION

 

Home Depot Products Authority, LLC v. CHARLES MEYER / COUNTRY COMPUTER

Claim Number: FA1706001737571

PARTIES

Complainant is Home Depot Products Authority, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Richard J. Groos of King & Spalding LLP, Texas, USA.  Respondent is CHARLES MEYER / COUNTRY COMPUTER (“Respondent”), Wisconsin, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <hamptonbaylight.net> and <hamptonbaylights.net>, registered with NameSilo, LLC and eNom, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 27, 2017; the Forum received payment on June 27, 2017.

 

On June 27, 2017 and June 28, 2017, NameSilo, LLC and eNom, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hamptonbaylight.net> and <hamptonbaylights.net> domain names are registered with NameSilo, LLC and eNom, LLC, respectively, and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameSilo and LLC; eNom, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC; eNom, LLC registration agreement and have thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On June 29, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 19, 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@hamptonbaylight.net and postmaster@hamptonbaylights.net.  Also on June 29, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 30, 2017.

 

On July 5, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

CONSENT TO TRANSFER

Respondent consents to transfer the <hamptonbaylight.net> and <hamptonbaylights.net> domain names to Complainant.  However, after the initiation of this proceeding, ENOM, INC. placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain names while this proceeding is still pending.  As a result, the Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain names but instead agrees to transfer the domain names in question to Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <hamptonbaylight.net> and <hamptonbaylights.net> domain names.  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.”).

 

Accordingly, the Panel determines that it would be appropriate to transfer the domain names.

 

DECISION

Upon stipulation, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hamptonbaylight.net> and <hamptonbaylights.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

July 18, 2017