About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Klein, DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Reosenlieb & Kimball, LLP v. Viktar Kliuchenia / Perfect Privacy, LLC

Case No. D2016-1328

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Klein, DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Reosenlieb & Kimball, LLP of Bakersfield, California, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.

The Respondent is Viktar Kliuchenia of Minsk, Belarus / Perfect Privacy, LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <kdghrsolutions.com> (the “Domain Name”), is registered with TLDS L.L.C. d/b/a SRSPlus (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 29, 2016, naming the Respondent as Perfect Privacy LLC. The Center transmitted its verification request to the Registrar on June 30, 2016. The Registrar replied on the same date, identifying the current registrant as Viktar Kliuchenia and providing the full contact details held on its WhoIs database in respect of the Domain Name. The Registrar also confirmed that it had received a copy of the Complaint, that the Domain Name was registered through it, that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) applies, that the Domain Name will remain locked during this proceeding, and that the language used at the time of registration was English.

The Center drew the Complainant’s attention to the information provided by the Registrar identifying the registrant and invited the Complainant to amend the Complaint on July 4, 2016. The Complainant expressed an intention to amend the Complaint but did not do so. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the UDRP, the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 21, 2016. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was August 10, 2016.

The Respondent emailed the Center on July 22, 2016, stating: “hi, they can initiate transfer of this domains”. The Center drew the parties’ attention to the possibility of suspending the proceeding to implement a settlement agreement. The Complainant replied stating that it had attempted to reach a settlement prior to initiating this proceeding and that in view of the lack of response to these attempts, the Complainant would like the proceeding to continue.

The Respondent wrote again to the Center on July 28, 2016, stating: “I’m ready to transfer this domain. The Complainant can initiate this transfer. or should I transfer this domain somewhere?”

The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on August 25, 2016. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules. The Panel is satisfied that the Complaint complied with applicable formal requirement, was duly notified to the Respondent and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the UDRP, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant has provided legal services and training in employee management under a trademark comprising a logo of the letters KDGHRS and, in smaller type, “KDG Human Resource Solutions” since at least August 2007. The Complainant has registered this mark on the principal trademark register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office since October 14, 2008, and also claims common law rights in it.

The Complainant promoted its services through a website at “www.kdghrsolutions.com” from at least November 2007 but unintentionally omitted to pay renewal fees resulting in the lapse of the registration in or about September 2014. Viktar Kliuchenia registered the Domain Name after the Complainant’s registration lapsed in or about September 2014. The Complainant attempted to contact Viktar Kliuchenia to negotiate a return of the Domain Name but did not receive a reply.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark described above in which it has registered and unregistered rights. It submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that it was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to it.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not submit a Response but the registrant of the Domain Name stated in an email to the Center of July 28, 2016: “I’m ready to transfer this domain”.

6. Discussion and Findings

As recorded above, in his email of July 28, 2016, the registrant of the Domain Name gave his unambiguous consent to the transfer of the Domain Name, which is the remedy requested by the Complainant.

As noted in section 4.13 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), WIPO panels have held in a number of cases that where a registrant gives such consent, even if there has been no agreed settlement, the Panel has a discretion to order transfer of the Domain Name without further analysis.

In this case, the Panel sees no reason not to exercise its discretion to order transfer in accordance with the registrant’s consent, without the need to analyze further the merits of the case.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name, <kdghrsolutions.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist
Date: September 2, 2016

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/