NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Doctolib v. Jibril YAHYAOUI

PARTIES

Complainant is Doctolib ("Complainant"), represented by Paddy Tam of CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. Respondent is Jibril YAHYAOUI ("Respondent"), France.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <doctolib.ai>, 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 January 9, 2025; Forum received payment on January 9, 2025.

On January 20, 2025, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <doctolib.ai> 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 January 21, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of February 10, 2025 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@doctolib.ai. Also on January 21, 2025, 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 formal Response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On February 11, 2025, 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 formal Response from Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER

Shortly after receiving the Written Notice of Complaint the Respondent sent an email message to Forum reading as follows:

Hello,

You can check with ONlyDomains, they have refunded my years ago about this domain.

I do not own this anymore (I guess)

If it was the case, it's not my fault, because it has normally expired few days ago (I did not reconducted the domain)

Thanks.

Best regards.

Jibril YAHYAOUI.

While not meeting the requirements for a Response set forth in Rule 5, this message appears to be authentic and clearly disclaims any interest in the domain name. This being so, it can reasonably be inferred that he consents to a transfer of the domain name 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 <doctolib.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED to Complainant.

___________________________________________________________

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

Dated: February 12, 2025