Rocket Mortgage, LLC v. Daisy Uceda / Rocket / Jeffrey L Blackman / Laurus Homes, LLC / clyde joyner / Charles McDade / McDade Insurance Brokerage Group, LLC / Allen, Raheem / rocketmortgage / Mit Patel / Michael J Goggins / Carlos Ringer / Barbara Terry / Milt Manos / Mallory M Mazarakes / Movement Mortgage
Claim Number: FA2209002011369
Complainant is Rocket Mortgage, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California. Respondent is Daisy Uceda / Rocket / Jeffrey L Blackman / Laurus Homes, LLC / clyde joyner / Charles McDade / McDade Insurance Brokerage Group, LLC / Allen, Raheem / rocketmortgage / Mit Patel / Michael J Goggins / Carlos Ringer / Barbara Terry / Milt Manos / Mallory M Mazarakes / Movement Mortgage (“Respondent”), CA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <daisyrocketmortgage.com>, <notrocketmortgage.com>, <rocketmortgageapplication.com>, <rocketmortgagetx.com>, <rocketmortgage-pro.com>, <rocketmortgage.app>, <rocketmortgage.loans>, <rocketmortgage.xyz>, <rocketpro.mortgage>, <rocketrenomortgage.com>, <rocketrenovationmortgage.com>, <rocketsciencemortgage.com>, and <rocketyourmortgage.com>, registered with Google 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 8, 2022; Forum received payment on September 9, 2022.
On Sep 09, 2022, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <daisyrocketmortgage.com>, <notrocketmortgage.com>, <rocketmortgageapplication.com>, <rocketmortgagetx.com>, <rocketmortgage-pro.com>, <rocketmortgage.app>, <rocketmortgage.loans>, <rocketmortgage.xyz>, <rocketpro.mortgage>, <rocketrenomortgage.com>, <rocketrenovationmortgage.com>, <rocketsciencemortgage.com>, and <rocketyourmortgage.com> domain names are registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 19, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 11, 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@daisyrocketmortgage.com, postmaster@notrocketmortgage.com, postmaster@rocketmortgageapplication.com, postmaster@rocketmortgagetx.com, postmaster@rocketmortgage-pro.com, postmaster@rocketmortgage.app, postmaster@rocketmortgage.loans, postmaster@rocketmortgage.xyz, postmaster@rocketpro.mortgage, postmaster@rocketrenomortgage.com, postmaster@rocketrenovationmortgage.com, postmaster@rocketsciencemortgage.com, and postmaster@rocketyourmortgage.com. Also on September 19, 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 October 7, 2022.
On October 11, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Another respondent’s timely Response was received on October 15, 2022.
Multiple email communications were received from various named respondents concerning the instant dispute both before and after October 11, 2022.
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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) states: “A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.” Complainant alleges that notwithstanding differences in the domain registration records for the putative at-issue domain names, such domain names are nevertheless effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Complainant alleges that the domain names in the present dispute share the same WHOIS customer number, the same service provider and registrar, contain Complainant’s ROCKET MORTGAGE trademark less its space, and all but one domain name address websites with similar content. While it is possible that the domain names’ underlying registrants may or may not differ in their relevant WHOIS data, Complainant argues that the at-issue domain names appear to be related to, or controlled by, the same person, persons, or entity and thus it is appropriate for the Panel to proceed against all named respondents as if a single entity.
On the other hand, multiple responses and email correspondence from various named respondents were ultimately received by the Forum including a formal response which contends that the nominal respondents are not controlled by a single entity and therefore joinder of the nominal respondents/domain name registrants is improper.
Although the Rules afford that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name provided that such domain names are registered by the same name holder and “the same holder” may encompass multiple nominal respondents because their related domain names are effectively control by a single entity, the Panel finds that in the instant case Complainant nevertheless names multiple entities as respondents in violation of Rule ¶ 3(c).
There is no express basis in the Rules as to how to proceed in a dispute which is related to multiple domain names and multiple respondents. To conform to Rule ¶ 3(c) the complaint would need to be amended to proceed against a subset of the nominal respondents (those who commonly control the at-issue domain names and may thus be treated as a single entity) or simply against a single respondent. Reducing the named respondents to a subset thereof such that there is effectively one respondent remaining entails dismissing the dispute as to some while leaving others or another as the respondent. This panel does not find a path within the Rules by which, after determining a complaint does not conform to Rule ¶ 3(c), it may determine which named respondents might stay and which should be dismissed so that the dispute may then proceed in a configuration conforming to the Rule. Notably, in a UDRP proceeding the selection of respondents is made by the complainant in its complaint and not ultimately left to the panel.
Therefore given all of the foregoing, the Panel elects to dismiss the dispute without prejudice.
The Complaint was filed against multiple respondents who do not effectively control the collective of at-issue domain names as a single entity.
Having found that the Complaint was filed against multiple respondents contrary to the Rules, the Complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: October 21, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page