DECISION

 

Sub-Zero, Inc. and Wolf Appliance, Inc. v. Azamat Kozhakhmetov

Claim Number: FA2508002172458

 

PARTIES

Complainants are Sub-Zero, Inc. and Wolf Appliance, Inc. ("Complainants"), represented by Bianca L. Ascolese of Foley & Lardner LLP, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is Azamat Kozhakhmetov ("Respondent"), Mississippi, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <subzero-wolf-care.com>, registered with Domain.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

Complainants submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 19, 2025; Forum received payment on August 19, 2025.

 

On August 20, 2025, Domain.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <subzero-wolf-care.com> domain name is registered with Domain.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domain.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domain.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 August 21, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of September 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@subzero-wolf-care.com. Also on August 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 8, 2025.

 

On September 9, 2025, pursuant to Complainants' 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

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

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES:

Multiple Complainants

Two parties, Sub-Zero, Inc. and Wolf Appliance, Inc., filed this administrative proceeding as Complainants. The rules governing multiple complainants are Rule 3(a) and Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint in accordance with the Policy and these Rules."  Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain name Registration" as the "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint."  Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.

 

In this case, the Complaint states that both named Complainants are affiliated companies owned by the same parent corporation. Complainant supported this with a Declaration of the Vice President—Finance for all three companies, which states those same facts, all within the personal knowledge of the declarant.  This corporate relationship demonstrates a sufficient nexus among the named Complainants to meet the requirements of Supplemental Rule 1(e). Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. kim seong su, FA1904001840242 (June 3, 2019) ("Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II is a wholly owned subsidiary of Skechers U.S.A., Inc.  . . . As the two Complainants in this case are in fact closely related, being part of the same company structure, the Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and the Panel will therefore treat them together as a single entity in this proceeding."), Bed Bath & Beyond Procurement Co, Inc. et al. v. shaoxuan li / lishaoxuan, FA1902001829423 (Forum Mar. 11, 2019). The same is true of intellectual property holding companies and their corporate parents. GUESS IP Holder L.P. and VUSE?, Inc. v. New Ventures Services, Corp., FA1901001825019 (Forum Feb. 10, 2019) ("Complainant GUESS IP Holder is a holding company concerned with Complainant GUESS, Inc.'s intellectual property. The Panel therefore finds that the two Complainants (herein referred to collectively as Complainant) have a sufficient nexus to each other and to the matters complained of such that they shall be treated as if a single entity."). It is thus proper for both Complainants to file and prosecute a single Complaint. The Panel will treat them as a single entity for the purposes of this proceeding. All references to "Complainant" in this Decision, even though in the singular, are to both named Complainants.

 

Consent To Transfer

The Response filed by Respondent reads in relevant part as follows;

 

I, Azamat Kozhakhmetov, the Respondent in this case (FA2508002172458), confirm that I do not wish to contest the Complaint regarding the domain name <subzero-wolf-care.com>.

When I registered this domain, I was not aware of any potential conflict with the Complainant's trademarks. Any use of the domain was unintentional and without any bad faith or harmful intent.

I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused.

I consent to the immediate transfer of the domain name <subzero-wolf-care.com> to the Complainant, Sub-Zero, Inc. and Wolf Appliance, Inc.

I respectfully request that this proceeding be terminated as a consent-to-transfer case.

 

Respondent clearly states a willingness 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 consents to a transfer of the domain name 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 <subzero-wolf-care.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED to Complainant.

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

Dated: September 10, 2025