DECISION

 

Taboola.com Ltd. v. Blair Russell / Rocmary LLC

Claim Number: FA2105001947362

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Taboola.com Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Jessica Galluccio of Taboola.com Ltd., Israel.  Respondent is Blair Russell / Rocmary LLC (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <tabool.com>, registered with DropCatch.com 661 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 May 24, 2021; the Forum received payment on May 24, 2021.

 

On May 25, 2021, DropCatch.com 661 LLC; confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <tabool.com> domain name (the Domain Name) is registered with DropCatch.com 661 LLC; and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  DropCatch.com 661 LLC; has verified that Respondent is bound by the DropCatch.com 661 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 May 26, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of June 15, 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@tabool.com.  Also on May 26, 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 Response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On June 21, 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 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: RESPONDENT CONSENTS TO TRANSFER

Shortly after serving the Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent the Forum received the following email correspondence from the Respondent:

Hello Jeanna,

We were not aware there was any trademark associated with this domain.  If your client would like I can unlock and transfer the domain to them at Namebright.com.

All I would need is your clients Username and Email Address at Namebright.com

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 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 Policy 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 <tabool.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED to Complainant.

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

Dated:  June 22, 2021