DECISION

 

Airbnb, Inc. v. Sinnya Tokoro

Claim Number: FA1804001784214

PARTIES

Complainant is Airbnb, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA.  Respondent is Sinnya Tokoro (“Respondent”), Japan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <airbnbplus.net>, registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com.

 

PANEL

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.

 

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 30, 2018; the Forum received payment on April 30, 2018.

 

On May 1, 2018, GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <airbnbplus.net> domain name is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com 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 May 4, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 24, 2018 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@airbnbplus.net.  Also on May 4, 2018, 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 May 19, 2018.

 

On May 22, 2018, 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. 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.  Respondent has not contested the requested transfer, and agrees to same.

 

Preliminary Issue – Consent to Transfer

Respondent consents to transfer the <airbnbplus.net> domain name to Complainant.  However, after the initiation of this proceeding, GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain name while this proceeding is still pending.  As a result, the Panel may find 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 in question to Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <airbnbplus.net> 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.”).

 

DECISION

Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name, and agrees to the transfer of the domain name in question to Complainant.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <airbnbplus.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated:  June 4, 2018