DECISION

 

Swinerton Incorporated v. Wu Yu

Claim Number: FA2104001940492

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Swinerton Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Jonathan Jonathan Matkowsky of RiskIQ, Inc., California, USA.  Respondent is Wu Yu (“Respondent”), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <swinertonrenewable.us>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.

 

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.

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 6, 2021; the Forum received payment on April 6, 2021.

 

On April 7, 2021, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <swinertonrenewable.us> domain name (the Domain Name) is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”)

 

On April 8, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of April 28, 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@swinertonrenewable.us.  Also on April 8, 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.

 

Having received no formal Response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On May 3, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy ("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 usTLD Policy, usTLD Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of a Response.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: RESPONDENT CONSENT TO TRANSFER

Shortly after serving the Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent the Forum received the following email correspondence from the email address given for the Respondent in the records of the registrar:

 

Do you need this domain name?

Just give it to you. It's free. How do I do it?

 

 

Thanks.

 

Best regards,

 

Wu

The Forum replied to Respondent the following day, with a copy to Complainant, advising him that the parties could request a stay in this proceeding to enable such transfer to be effected.  Neither the Forum nor Complainant heard anything further from Respondent.  While not meeting any of the technical requirements for a formal Response provided by Rule 5(c), Respondent’s message appears to be authentic and unequivocally indicates a willingness on his part to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant. 

As required by Policy ¶ 8(a), upon notice of the commencement of this proceeding, the registrar, Dynadot, LLC placed a hold on Respondent’s account.  Respondent therefore cannot transfer the Domain Name while this proceeding is pending.  Under these circumstances, where Respondent does not contest the transfer of the Domain Name but instead consents to a transfer to Complainant, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the Domain Name.  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), 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.”), 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”).  The Panel elects to adopt this approach and will order the transfer of the Domain Name without a usTLD analysis.

 

DECISION

Based upon the consent of Respondent to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant, the Panel concludes that that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <swinertonrenewable.us> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED to Complainant.

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

Dated:  May 5, 2021