FTI Consulting, Inc. v. youcam limited
Claim Number: FA2102001930836
Complainant is FTI Consulting, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Ryan C. Compton of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is youcam limited (“Respondent”), Malta.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <fti-consulting.com> registered with NameCheap, 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 February 3, 2021; the Forum received payment on February 3, 2021.
On February 4, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <fti-consulting.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 February 9, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 1, 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@fti-consulting.com. Also on February 9, 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 22, 2021.
On March 2, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Carol Stoner 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 <fti-consulting.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a global consulting firm. Complainant has rights in the FTI and FTI CONSULTING marks through its registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (FTI: Reg. 3,928,851, registered Mar. 8, 2011; Reg. 1,415,368, registered Oct. 28, 1986; FTI CONSULTING: Reg. 4,195,486, registered Aug. 21, 2012). See Compl. Ex. C. Respondent’s <fti-consulting.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adds a hyphen between the words, and adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to the end of the mark.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <fti-consulting.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use its FTI or FT CONSULTING marks in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead previously offered competing consulting services on the disputed domain name’s resolving website, and now inactively holds the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the <fti-consulting.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupted Complainant’s business for commercial gain by hosting competing services on the disputed domain name’s resolving website. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the FTI and FTI CONSULTING marks. Respondent has stated in its resolving website that “We are no longer active. Thank You.”
B. Respondent
In correspondence of February 18, 2020 to Complainant, Respondent states that “I just want to let you know that I agree to transfer the domain name to you, <fti-consulting.com>.”
And Respondent in his formal Response of February 22, 2010, states that, “I agree to transfer the domain name, <fti-consulting.com> to the Complainant.”
Panel notes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name of <fti-consulting.com>, on December 17, 2020.
As discussed below, Panel has concluded that the domain name <fti-consulting.com> shall be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Respondent in his Response, states that, “I agree to transfer the domain name <fti-consulting.com> to the Complainant.” However, after the initiation of this proceeding, NameCheap, Inc. placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore, Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain name while this proceeding is still pending.
Consequently, the Panel finds, that in such a circumstance, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, that the Panel is empowered to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to order an immediate transfer of the <fti-consulting.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).
Here, the Complainant has not objected, via an Additional Submission to Respondent’s Response, to Respondent’s agreement to a transfer, in lieu of defending any rights that he may have, in the disputed domain name. The effect of Complainant’s nolo contendere of Respondent’s Response, is to acquiesce in same. Therefore, as both parties have acquiesced in the transference of the domain name to the Complainant, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request. And in so doing, the Panel also has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy. See 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.”).
Panel foregoes the traditional UDRP analysis regarding Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).
Panel foregoes the traditional UDRP analysis regarding Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii).
Panel foregoes the traditional UDRP analysis regarding Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii).
Panel concurs with Respondent’s uncontested consent to transfer, and thus Orders an immediate transfer of the <fti-consulting.com> domain name to Complainant. As such, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <fti-consulting.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Carol Stoner Esq., Panelist
Dated: March 16, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page