CNH Industrial America LLC v. Eric Schoenfeld
Claim Number: FA2209002010676
Complainant is CNH Industrial America LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Ashly I. Boesche of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Eric Schoenfeld (“Respondent”), Illinois, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <caseconstructionequipment.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 1, 2022; the Forum received payment on September 1, 2022.
On September 2, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <caseconstructionequipment.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.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 September 6, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 26, 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@caseconstructionequipment.com. Also on September 6, 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 September 6, 2022.
On September 9, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a Wisconsin-based construction company. Complainant claims rights in the CASE CONSTRUCTION mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,663,351 registered August 4, 2009). The disputed domain name <caseconstructionequipment.com> is confusingly similar because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s registered mark, with the addition of term “equipment” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <caseconstructionequipment.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the CASE CONSTRUCTION mark in any way.
Respondent uses the Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent offers the Domain Name for sale to the public.
B. Respondent
Respondent indicates that it is ready and willing to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant.
Respondent consents to transfer the <caseconstructionequipment.com> domain name to Complainant. However, after the initiation of this proceeding, GoDaddy.com, LLC, placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the Domain Name while this proceeding is still pending.
In a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the Domain Name, but instead agrees to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant, the Panel is authorized to forego the traditional UDRP analysis. This Panel, in recognition of the common request of the parties, in the interests of judicial expedience, and in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, has so decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to order an immediate transfer of the <caseconstructionequipment.com> domain name. See 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); see also 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.”); see also 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.”).
As the remedy of the Complainant and the request of the Respondent both sought to transfer the Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant, the Panel concludes that such relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <caseconstructionequipment.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: September 12, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page