Balti International, Inc. d/b/a PLC Hardware v. Dave Capella
Claim Number: FA2104001941434
Complainant is Balti International, Inc. d/b/a PLC Hardware (“Complainant”), represented by Meaghan H. Kent of Venable LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Dave Capella (“Respondent”), represented by Cecilia Herrera, Mexico.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <plchwd.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 14, 2021; the Forum received payment on April 14, 2021.
On April 15, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <plchwd.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 April 16, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 6, 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@plchwd.com. Also on April 16, 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 May 5, 2021.
On May 11, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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 be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, operating under the name and mark PLCH, is a distributor of new surplus and refurbished industrial automation and networking equipment.
Complainant holds a registration for the PLCH trademark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 4,006,627, registered August 2, 2011.
Respondent registered the domain name <plchwd.com> on April 22, 2017.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PLCH mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its PLCH trademark.
Respondent has not employed the domain name in connection with either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent currently fails to make any active use of the domain name.
Previously, until at least January of 2021, Respondent used the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant online while offering to sell products similar, if not identical, to those sold on Complainant’s official website.
Respondent lacks both rights to and legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the PLCH mark when it registered the domain name.
Respondent both registered and now uses the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
In its Response to the Complaint, Respondent declares, among other things, that: “[W]e don’t have any problem to transfer [to] you this domain….”
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following in order to obtain from a Panel a decision that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the same domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions. See, for example, Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum January 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 Enterprises, 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 [sic] to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.
DECISION
Respondent does not contest the allegations of the Complaint, and, in particular, it does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. Rather, in the face of Complainant’s demand that the domain name be transferred to it, Respondent has expressed in writing its willingness to surrender it. Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <plchwd.com> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: May 17, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page