Transamerica Corporation v. Michael Decker / Decker Retirement Planning
Claim Number: FA1906001846726
Complainant is Transamerica Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Gail Podolsky of Carlton Fields, P.A., Georgia, USA. Respondent is Michael Decker / Decker Retirement Planning (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <retirementontrack.com>, registered with FastDomain Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Carol Stoner, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 6, 2019; the Forum received payment on June 6, 2019.
On June 7, 2019, FastDomain Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <retirementontrack.com> domain name is registered with FastDomain Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. FastDomain Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the FastDomain 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 June 11, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 1, 2019 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@retirementontrack.com. Also on June 11, 2019, 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.
On June 17, 2019, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Carol Stoner, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain name <retirementontrack.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Transamerica Corporation, uses their marks ONTRACK and RETIRE ONTRACK in connection with life insurance and retirement services. Complainant has rights in the ONTRACK and RETIRE ONTRACK marks based on registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. ONTRACK - Reg. No. 3,531,592, registered Nov. 11, 2008, e.g. RETIRE ONTRACK - Reg. No. 4,506,920, registered Apr. 1, 2014). See Compl. Ex. 1. Respondent’s <retirementontrack.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RETIRE ONTRACK mark, as it incorporates the mark in their entirety, merely adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <retirementontrack.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the marks in any manner. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert users to a website that hosts links in direct competition with Complainant’s business.
Respondent registered and is using the <retirementontrack.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent intentionally seeks to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert users to a website that hosts pay-per-click links in direct competition with Complainant. Further, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the marks prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent’s sole remarks in its Response was an agreement to transfer the disputed domain <retirementontrack.com> name to the Complainant.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered on June 6, 2019. See Compl. Ex. 3, which is subsequent to Complainant’s registration of RETIRE ONTRACK on Apr. 1, 2014.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: Consent to Transfer
Respondent consents to transfer the <retirementontrack.com> domain name to Complainant. However, after the initiation of this proceeding, FastDomain Inc. placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain name while this proceeding is still pending.
In a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name, but instead agrees to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, the Panel is authorized to forego the traditional UDRP analysis. In the absence of such analysis, the Panel has no correlative mandate to make findings of fact, or of compliance (or not) with the Policy. This Panel, in a recognition of the common request of the parties, in the interests of judicial expedience, and in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, has so decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to order an immediate transfer of the <retirementontrack.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.”).
This Panel, in a recognition of the common request of the parties, in the interests of judicial expedience, and in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, has so decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to order an immediate transfer of the <retirementontrack.com> domain name.
As the remedy of the Complainant and the request of the Respondent both sought to transfer the domain name from the Respondent to the Complainant, the Panel concludes that such relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <retirementontrack.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant ..
Carol Stoner, Esq., Panelist
Dated: July 1, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page