Textron Innovations Inc. v. Raju Tulsiyani / V2ideas.com
Claim Number: FA2303002038053
Complainant is Textron Innovations Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jeremiah A. Pastrick, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Raju Tulsiyani / V2ideas.com (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <textorn.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 30, 2023; Forum received payment on March 30, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <textorn.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.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 March 31, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 20, 2023 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@textorn.com. Also on March 31, 2023, 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send emails to the Forum, see below.
On April 27, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states it is not only one of the world's best known multi-industry companies, it is a pioneer of the diversified business model. Founded in 1923, Complainant has grown into a network of businesses with total revenues of $12.4 billion (Complainant is ranked 265th on the FORTUNE 500 list of largest U.S. companies), with approximately 34,000 employees with facilities and presence in 25 countries, serving a diverse and global customer base. Complainant’s companies include some of the most respected global brands in transportation, including Bell, E-Z-GO golf carts and Cessna aircraft. Complainant operates a web site at <textron.com> that features information regarding the company, its products, businesses and subsidiaries. Complainant asserts rights in the TEXTRON mark based upon its registration in the United States in 1978.
Complainant became aware of the disputed domain name <textorn.com> in March 2023 as part of its investigation into a phishing scam associated with a similar domain name (<textorn.net>). With regard to that matter (Textron Innovations Inc. v. Eddie Hartfield / Textron Aviation, FA2303002034874) the domain name <textorn.net> was being utilized as part of a “phishing” scam in emails that impersonated one of Complainant’s employees, communicated with Complainant’s customers, and attempted to extract payment/financial information from such customers.
In addition to the facts, evidence and arguments laid out below that support transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant, Complainant believes that, given its experience with similar domains, it is highly likely that the disputed domain name was registered with the intent of undertaking a phishing scam similar to the one carried out using the <textorn.net> domain.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its TEXTRON mark as it consists of a misspelling of the mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s TEXTRON mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is inactively holding the disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name. Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TEXTRON mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its emails to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “This domain was registered by mistake due to a spelling mistake, we didn't use this domain anywhere till now and we are not going to renew this domain for next year. We are a website development company and we buy domains for our client only but for this domain, the client was denied to pay us due to wrong spelling. If you want we are ready to give you auth code for this domain.” And:”As per our past mail, it clearly mentioned that the domain was booked by mistake so it is unused yet. We did not troll any activities on the same domains and we are ready to transfer the domain to the actual trademark owner.”
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. 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 Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also 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 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.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <textorn.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: April 27, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page