DECISION

 

Textron Innovations Inc. v. Kevin Alameda / Clipper Oil

Claim Number: FA2505002153631

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Textron Innovations Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeremiah A. Pastrick of Pastrick Law LLC, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Kevin Alameda / Clipper Oil ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <cessnafuel.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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 May 1, 2025; Forum received payment on May 1, 2025.

 

On May 5, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cessnafuel.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 May 7, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of May 27, 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@cessnafuel.com. Also on May 7, 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 May 21, 2025.

 

On May 22, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER

Two weeks after receiving the Written Notice of Complaint the Respondent sent an email message to Forum reading in relevant part as follows:

 

The domain name cessnafuel.com has been voluntarily deleted and is no longer under our control through GoDaddy.com.

Clipper Oil and Mr. Kevin Alameda have no ongoing interest in retaining or using this domain.

. . . .

In accordance with Paragraph 17(a) of the UDRP Rules, which provides for termination of proceedings upon resolution between the parties, we believe this matter no longer requires administrative adjudication.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the proceeding be administratively closed or otherwise resolved in the most expedient and cooperative manner possible.

. . . .

 

Rule 17(a) referred to in Respondent's email provides that the Panel shall terminate the proceeding if the parties settle before the Panel issues its Decision. There is no evidence of a settlement here, only a statement by Respondent that it consents to a transfer. Accordingly, there is no basis for the Panel, or Forum, simply to terminate the proceeding.

 

Nevertheless, Respondent's message appears to be authentic and clearly states a willingness on the part of the Respondent to transfer 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 <cessnafuel.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED to Complainant.

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

Dated: May 23, 2025