DECISION

 

Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc. v. Georgios Katsaros

Claim Number: FA2106001949133

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joshua M. Dalton of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Massachusetts, USA.  Respondent is Georgios Katsaros (“Respondent”), Greece.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <officedepotoffers.com>, registered with Sav.com, 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 June 1, 2021; the Forum received payment on June 1, 2021.

 

On June 2, 2021, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <officedepotoffers.com> domain name (the Domain Name) is registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.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 June 3, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of June 23, 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@officedepotoffers.com.  Also on June 3, 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 timely, formal Response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

Other correspondence was received on June 17, 2021.

 

On June 29, 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 to Complainant Office Depot, LLC.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Multiple Complainants

Two parties, Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc., filed this administrative proceeding as Complainants.  The rules governing multiple complainants are Rule 3(a) and the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e).  Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.”  The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as the “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”  Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other.  For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.

 

In this case, The Office Club, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Office Depot, LLC and is its intellectual property holding company.  This relationship has frequently been held to establish the required nexus between two complainants.  Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. kim seong su, FA1904001840242 (June 3, 2019) (“Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II is a wholly owned subsidiary of Skechers U.S.A., Inc.  . . . As the two Complainants in this case are in fact closely related, being part of the same company structure, the Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and the Panel will therefore treat them together as a single entity in this proceeding.”), Bed Bath & Beyond Procurement Co, Inc. et al. v. shaoxuan li / lishaoxuan, FA1902001829423 (Forum Mar. 11, 2019).  The same is true of intellectual property holding companies and their corporate parents.  Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. New Ventures Services, Corp., FA1901001825019 (Forum Feb. 10, 2019) (“Complainant Guess IP Holder is a holding company concerned with Complainant Guess, Inc.’s intellectual property. The Panel therefore finds that the two Complainants (herein referred to collectively as Complainant) have a sufficient nexus to each other and to the matters complained of such that they shall be treated as if a single entity.”), SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby’s v. Moirano, FA1810001813071 (Forum Nov. 17, 2018).  It is thus proper for both Complainants to file and prosecute a single Complaint.  The Panel will treat them as a single entity for the purposes of this proceeding.  All references to “Complainant” in this Decision, even though in the singular, are to both named Complainants.

 

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 listed for the Respondent in the records of the registrar:

 

Hello.

Please takeover the domain.

 

Στις 3 Ιουν 2021 5:15 μ.μ., ο χρήστης

While not meeting any of the technical requirements for a formal Response provided by Rule 5(c), the Respondent’s message appears to be authentic and unequivocally indicates a willingness on his part for the Domain Name to be transferred 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 <officedepotoffers.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED to Complainant.

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

Dated:  July 1, 2021