PuroSystems, LLC v. Zsolt Bikadi
Claim Number: FA2202001986321
Complainant is PuroSystems, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Janet C. Moreira of MAVEN IP, Florida, USA. Respondent is Zsolt Bikadi (“Respondent”), Hungary.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <purocleanwr.com>, which is registered with DropCatch.com 1011 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 February 28, 2022; the Forum received payment on February 28, 2022.
On March 1, 2022, DropCatch.com 1011 LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <purocleanwr.com> domain name is registered with DropCatch.com 1011 LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DropCatch.com 1011 LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DropCatch.com 1011 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 March 2, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 22, 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@purocleanwr.com. Also on March 2, 2022, 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 March 3, 2022.
On March 8, 2022, 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 is a disaster recovery and property restoration services provider.
Complainant holds a registration for the PUROCLEAN service mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 2,977,204, registered July 26, 2005, renewed on August 14, 2015.
From 2007 to 2021, Complainant was the owner and registrant of the domain name <purocleanwr.com>.
The letter combination “wr” included in the domain name has special significance in Complainant’s industry because it stands for “water recovery,” an important facet of Complainant’s business.
Respondent registered the domain name on December 16, 2021, only a matter of weeks after Complainant had inadvertently allowed its registration to lapse.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PUROCLEAN mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its PUROCLEAN mark in a domain name.
Respondent does not use the domain name in connection with either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to host pay-per-click links on its resolving website, from the operation of which links Respondent derives financial gain.
Respondent lacks both rights to and legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent registered the domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PUROCLEAN mark.
Respondent has both registered and now uses the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent has not registered or used the domain name in bad faith.
The domain name was legitimately registered after Complainant’s prior registration expired.
The registration of available domain names is a normal part of Respondent’s business.
Respondent does not want to continue holding the domain name.
Respondent authorizes the domain name’s registrar to remove it from Respondent’s account.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must, in the ordinary course, 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 material 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.
It is therefore Ordered that the domain name <purocleanwr.com> be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: March 9, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page