DECISION

 

Prisma Health f/k/a SC Health Company v. David Maloney / Urgent Care Group

Claim Number: FA2109001963309

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Prisma Health f/k/a SC Health Company (“Complainant”), represented by Jason A. Pittman of Dority & Manning, P.A., South Carolina, USA.  Respondent is David Maloney / Urgent Care Group (“Respondent”), Tennessee, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <prismahealthurgentcare.com> and <prismahealthurgentcare.org>, registered with Network Solutions, 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 September 10, 2021; the Forum received payment on September 10, 2021.

 

On September 14, 2021, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <prismahealthurgentcare.com> and <prismahealthurgentcare.org> domain names (the Domain Names) are registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 September 20, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of October 12, 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@prismahealthurgentcare.com, postmaster@prismahealthurgentcare.org.  Also on September 20, 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 October 7, 2021.

 

On October 11, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE:  RESPONDENT CONSENT TO TRANSFER

On October 7, 2021 the Forum received a Response signed by the Respondent, the material portion of which states that Respondent does not dispute the claim and is eager to resolve the Complaint by transferring the Domain Names to Complainant.  This document appears to be authentic and unequivocally indicates a willingness on Respondent’s part for the Domain Names to be transferred. 

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 Names while this proceeding is pending.  Under these circumstances, where Respondent does not contest the transfer of the Domain Names but instead consents to a transfer, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the Domain Names.  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 Names without a Policy analysis.

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <prismahealthurgentcare.com> and <prismahealthurgentcare.org> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED to Complainant.

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

October 12, 2021