DECISION

 

Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Idah Idah

Claim Number: FA2208002010409

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Securian Financial Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA.  Respondent is Idah Idah (“Respondent”), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <securianretirementcemter.com>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH.

 

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 Forum electronically on August 31, 2022; Forum received payment on August 31, 2022.

 

On August 31, 2022, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <securianretirementcemter.com> domain name (the Domain Name) is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 1, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of September 21, 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@securianretirementcemter.com.  Also on September 1, 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.

 

Having received no Response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 29, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 DOMAIN NAME

Shortly after serving the Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent the Forum received an email message from the Respondent reading as follows:

 

Ultimately this domain was registered as a result of a technical error. Would the complainant prefer the voluntary immediate transfer of the domain rather than waiting on the results of a UDRP filing? I have no desire to keep the domain name.

 

-Idah

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 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 a 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 <securianretirementcemter.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED to Complainant.

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

Dated:  October 3, 2022