DECISION

 

CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. GMO Registry, / GMO Registry, Inc.

Claim Number: FA2401002078129

PARTIES

Complainant is CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is GMO Registry, / GMO Registry, Inc. ("Respondent"), Japan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <systimax.shop>, registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.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 Forum electronically on January 8, 2024; Forum received payment on January 8, 2024.

 

On January 8, 2024, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <systimax.shop> domain name is registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com 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 January 11, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Japanese and English Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of January 31, 2024 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@systimax.shop. Also on January 11, 2024, the Japanese and English 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default in Japanese and English.

 

On February 1, 2024, 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

On January 31, 2024, apparently in response to Forum's request for WHOIS information from the registrar, the registrar sent the following email, written in English, to Forum:

Dear Jeanna,

 

Thank you for forwarding the documentation, and we sincerely apologize for any delay in our response or inconvenience due to the inactive email address.

Upon thorough review, it has come to our attention that the domain name in question, systimax.shop, was inadvertently registered during an internal test. The registration was purely coincidental, and GMO Registry had no intention of using any domain beyond the scope of the internal test. We sincerely regret any inconvenience this oversight on our part may have caused.

In response to the requested remedy, we are more than willing to oblige with the transfer of the domain.

 

Kindly let us know any next action required from GMO Registry so that we may promptly comply.

 

Once again, we apologize for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

 

Best Regards,

 

Carlos Lopez

GMO Registry

From this it is evident that the registrar is also the Respondent. While it's email does not meet the technical requirements for a formal Response provided by Rule 5(c), and indeed was not intended to, the Respondent's message is 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 <systimax.shop> Domain name be TRANSFERRED to Complainant.

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

Dated: February 2, 2024