Houston-methodist.com

The timeline behind houston-methodist.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION The Methodist Hospital v. GENYVIETNAM JOINT-STOCK COMPANY Claim Number: FA2502002140516 PARTIES Complainant is The Methodist Hospital ("Complainant"), represented by John C. Cain of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is GENYVIETNAM JOINT-STOCK COMPANY ("Respondent"), Vietnam. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <houston-methodist.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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. Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 17, 2025; Forum received payment on February 17, 2025. On February 17, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <houston-methodist.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 February 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 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@houston-methodist.com. Also on February 18, 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. Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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 formal response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER On March 11, 2025, Forum received an email from Respondent stating Respondent's willingness to transfer the disputed domain name. Since Respondent has agreed to Complainant's request, the Panel has decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to order a transfer of the domain name. See Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Carsten Gallini, FA 2024058 (Forum Jan. 9, 2023) ("The plain construction of Respondent's declarations is one of consent to transfer, as it similarly comports with Complainant's demand for transfer of the disputed domain. Therefore, Panel will recognize the twin requests of the parties."); CNH Industrial America LLC v. Eric Schoenfeld, FA 2010676 (Forum Sept. 12, 2022) ("This Panel, in recognition of the common request of the parties, in the interests of judicial expedience, and in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, has so decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to order an immediate transfer of the … domain name."); and Home Depot Products Authority, LLC v. CHARLES MEYER / COUNTRY COMPUTER, FA 1737571 (Forum June 29, 2017) ("[T]he Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain names but instead agrees to transfer the domain names in question to Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the … domain names."). The Panel notes that Complainant has submitted evidence of its registration of the HOUSTON METHODIST mark and finds the disputed domain is confusingly similar to that mark. DECISION Respondent having consented to the transfer of the domain name to Complainant, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <houston-methodist.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. ______________________________________________________________ Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist March 24, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.