1.1 The Complainant is Techint Compañía Técnica Internacional Sociedad Anónima Comercial e Industrial of Buenos Aires, Argentina, represented by G. Breuer, Argentina.
1.2 The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0134993490 of Toronto, Canada / Nestor Romera of Miami, Florida, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Julio César Rumbea Claverol. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 15, 2018. On November 16, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 16, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 20, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 21, 2018.
3.2 The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “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”).
3.3 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 26, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 16, 2018. A Response was filed with the Center on December 14, 2018. The status of this Response is addressed in greater detail later on in this decision
3.4 The Center appointed Matthew S. Harris as the sole panelist in this matter on January 7, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
3.5 On January 18, 2019 and having reviewed the case file, the Panel informed the Parties (via an email from the Center) that it appeared to the Panel that either the Respondent or a person acting with the Respondent’s authority consented to the transfer the Domain Name into the hands of the Complainant. The Panel also informed the Parties that given this it was of the view that it would be possible and appropriate to issue an abbreviated form of decision similar to that adopted Statoil ASA v. gaelle etienne / WhoisGuard Protected,WIPO Case No. D2015-1812, ordering the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant. It requested that if the Complainant objected to that approach, the Complainant should to inform the Center of that objection together with reasons for that objection. No objection has been so filed as at the date of the decision. 4. Factual Background
4.1 The Complainant would appear to be a company either incorporated or based in Argentina and is part of the “Techint” group of companies. The business of the Techint group was founded in in 1945 by Agostino Rocca, an engineer and entrepreneur with Italian roots, to provide engineering and construction services to clients in Europe and Latin America. It is now a multibillion dollar engineering and construction business with offices in more than 40 countries and a workforce of over 70,000.
4.2 The Complainant is owner of a number of different trade marks that either comprise or incorporate the “Techint” name. These include:
(i) Argentinian registered trade mark No. 2644985 for the word mark TECHINT in class 42, applied for on August 26, 2013; and
(ii) Argentinian registered trade mark No. 2644660 for the word mark TECHINT in class 37, applied for on August 26, 2013.
4.3 Other companies in the Complainant’s group also appear to own trade marks that incorporate the “Techint” name. For example, Techint Compagnia Tecnica Internazionales S.p.A, which would appear to be an Italian corporation, is the owner of United States registered mark No. 4031168 for a design mark incorporating the text “T Techint” in classes 35, 37 and 42, filed on December 23, 2010.
4.4 The Domain Name was registered on June 25, 2013. It has been used subsequent to that date for a website promoting the services of “Techint Group Corp”. That website included the following statement:
“Techint Group Corp is well respected for its professionalism and widely acknowledged to be at maintenance services [sic].
Over the years the Company has developed from a local aggregate small business to a Multi-faceted organization.
Our Mission is to be the leading road maintenance Company that exceeds our client’s expectations, all the while providing a safe working environment to our personnel and a reasonable return on Investment”.
4.5 That website was taken down following the sending of a cease and desist email from the Complainant attorneys to the email address provided in the then available WhoIs details for the Domain Name.
4.6 At the time that these proceedings were commenced, the underlying registrant for the Domain Name was hidden behind a privacy service. However, in its response to the Center’s verification request, the Registrar identified the underlying registrant as “Nestor Romera”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
5.1 Given the matters set out in the Procedural History section of this decision and the Panel’s reasoning below, it is not necessary to set out the Parties’ contentions in this matter. 6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 As the Panel has already recorded in the Procedural History section of this decision, a Response was filed in these proceedings. That Response unequivocally consented to the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.
6.2 The basis upon which a panel might or might not decide to order a transfer or cancellation in circumstances where the respondent consents are addressed in section 4.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). In the opinion of this Panel, the Policy and the Rules permit a panel to order transfer in such circumstances, subject to the discretion of a panel not to do so should it for any reason consider this to be inappropriate.
6.3 There is a complication in this case in that the Response did not purport to have been filed on behalf of the disclosed registrant, Mr. Romera. Instead, it purports to have been filed by another individual who claims as follows:
“The [Domain Name] was transferred to us by sale a few months ago by Mr. Nestor Romera, […]”
6.4 Nevertheless, the Panel does not consider that this complication prevents it from issuing an abbreviated decision. The reasons for this are as follows:
(i) The person or persons who filed the Response would appear to have been the recipient of emails sent by the Center and the Complainant in respect of the Domain Name using email addresses provided by the Registrar in respect of the Domain Name. Accordingly, prima facie that recipient has de facto control of the Domain Name regardless of in whose name it is registered.
(ii) There is no material before the Panel evidencing any such sale nor for that matter is there any disclosure of who exactly is the “us” to whom the Domain Name was transferred. But if there was a genuine sale from Mr. Romera as the Response contends (and the Panel makes no finding on the issue or even the existence of Mr. Romera), it prima facie follows that Mr. Romera has ceded control of the Domain Name to the purchaser and can raise no objection to the purchaser disposing of the Domain Name as it wishes.
(iii) The email sent by the Center on January 18, 2019 setting out the Panel’s intention to issue an abbreviated decision based upon the consent of the Respondent (or someone acting with the Respondent’s authority) was sent to email addresses disclosed by the Registrar in respect of the Domain Name. Therefore, if Mr. Romera exists, he has had an opportunity to object to a transfer on that basis. He has not done so.
(iv) The Complainant has raised no objection to the Panel proceeding in the manner indicated.
6.5 Having reviewed the case file, the Panel also does not consider there to be any other reason why in the particular circumstances of this case it would be inappropriate to issue a decision in an abbreviated form. It has, therefore, proceeded accordingly. 7. Decision
7.1 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Matthew S. Harris
Sole Panelist
Date: January 23, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy