The Prudential Insurance Company of America
v. Stephen Keohane
Claim Number: FA0606000736647
PARTIES
Complainant is The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Complainant”), represented by Sue J. Nam, 751 Broad Street, 21st Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-3777. Respondent is Stephen Keohane (“Respondent”), 10 Beacon St., Woburn, MA 01801.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <prudentialappraisals.com>,
registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and
impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in
serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on June 22, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard
copy of the Complaint on June 26, 2006.
On June 22, 2006, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the <prudentialappraisals.com>
domain name is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that the Respondent
is the current registrant of the name. Go
Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy
Software, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve
domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 28, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of July 18, 2006 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint,
was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@prudentialappraisals.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 3,
2006.
On July 6, 2006, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Complainant) has used its
well-known PRUDENTIAL name and mark for 130 years in connection with a wide
variety of insurance, securities, investment, financial and real estate services
throughout the United States and the world.
The PRUDENTIAL trademark is the subject of trademark registrations in
over 30 countries. In the United States
alone, Prudential owns dozens of federal trademark registrations and
applications for the PRUDENTIAL and PRUDENTIAL combination marks. Most of the U.S. registrations are
incontestable.
Prudential spends more than $90 million annually for advertising and
promotion of the brand. In addition,
Prudential promotes its services and its name and mark on the Internet. Prudential and affiliated companies operate
numerous websites, which incorporate the PRUDENTIAL mark in domain names.
On or about October 2005, Prudential learned that Respondent registered
the Domain Name, <prudentialappraisals.com> and was using the
website promoting real estate appraisal services.
On May 11, 2006, Prudential transmitted a cease and desist letter to
Respondent by email and U. S. Mail to the address identified in the Domain Name
registration records. Neither the
letter nor the email was returned as undeliverable. No response was received.
On June 10, 2006, seeing that the domain name remained active for a
website promoting real estate appraisal services, Prudential telephoned
Respondent to follow up on its cease and desist demand. Respondent stated that he would not
voluntarily deactivate the domain name but that he would sell the name to
Prudential. The website now states in
pertinent part: “Domain for Sale PRUDENTIALAPPRAISALS.COM make an offer $500
or more.”
B. Respondent
Respondent explains why he did not respond to the cease and desist
letter and denies any intent to deceive anyone into believing that the domain
name was associated with Complainant.
Respondent agrees to the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.
FINDINGS
1.
Since Respondent agrees to the transfer of the disputed domain name to
Complainant through this proceeding, no further findings of fact are required.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
Respondent has agreed to transfer the Domain
Name, <prudentialappraisals.com> in satisfaction of Complainant’s
requested remedy. Under such
circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s
request, it is proper to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the
transfer of the domain name. See
Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Arb.
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.”); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd-Cayman Web
Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain
name registration where the Respondent in that case stipulated to the
transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat.
Arb. 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”); see also Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v.
rbspayments, FA 728805 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006).
DECISION
The Respondent having agreed to transfer of the domain name to
Complainant as permitted under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that
relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <prudentialappraisals.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: July 18, 2006
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum