DECISION

 

Vision6 Pty Ltd v. Thomas Smith / Berkeley Executives

Claim Number: FA2501002138152

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Vision6 Pty Ltd ("Complainant"), represented by Robert J. English of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Thomas Smith / Berkeley Executives ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wearevision6.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with One.com A/S.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 31, 2025; Forum received payment on January 31, 2025.

 

On February 3, 2025, One.com A/S confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wearevision6.com> domain name is registered with One.com A/S and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. One.com A/S has verified that Respondent is bound by the One.com A/S 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 February 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 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@wearevision6.com. Also on February 4, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 24, 2025.

 

On February 24, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER

Respondent in its Response filed has indicated that it has no interest int the Domain Name and has consented to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant, without compensation, as a resolution to the proceeding, including providing details to facilitate the transfer.

 

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 <wearevision6.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.").

 

DECISION

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 <wearevision6.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: February 24, 2025