DECISION

 

Shoes West, Inc. v. Pham Van Tung

Claim Number: FA2112001977731

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Shoes West, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David A. Plumley of Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, California, USA.  Respondent is Pham Van Tung (“Respondent”), Vietnam.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <taoswalk.us>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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 December 20, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 20, 2021.

 

On December 22, 2021, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <taoswalk.us> domain name (the Domain Name) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On December 23, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of January 12, 2022 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@taoswalk.us.  Also on December 23, 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 January 18, 2022, 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”).  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 from Respondent.

 

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 message from the email address listed for the Respondent in the records of the registrar:

 

Thank you very much for emails to me. Regarding your complaint  about my domain name "Taoswalk.us", first of all, I would like to express my sincere apologies for your inconveniences. I am so sorry that I didn't notice that the name" Taos" has been officially registered as a brand before. Having read your letter, I now understand and I am hereby committed to remove all the domain names concerning your brand name immediately. I hope you understand that that was never my intention.

 

While not meeting the technical requirements for a formal Response provided by Rule 5(c), the Respondent’s message appears to be authentic and indicates a willingness on the part of Respondent 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 Policy 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

In light of Respondent’s consent to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant, the Panel concludes that that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

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

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

Dated:  January 19, 2022