National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

National Westminster Bank plc v. [Redacted]

Claim Number: FA0606000724496

 

PARTIES

Complainant is National Westminster Bank plc (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein L.L.P., Post Office Box 389, Raleigh, NC 27602.  Respondent is [Redacted] (“Respondent”). 

 

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <natwestbklondon.com>, registered with Tlds, Llc d/b/a Srsplus.

 

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.

 

Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) is the Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 1, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 5, 2006.

 

On June 6, 2006, Tlds, Llc d/b/a Srsplus confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <natwestbklondon.com> domain name is registered with Tlds, Llc d/b/a Srsplus and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Tlds, Llc d/b/a Srsplus has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tlds, Llc d/b/a Srsplus 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 7, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 27, 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@natwestbklondon.com by e-mail.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 27, 2006.

 

A hard copy of the Response was received on June 12, 2006.  However, the National Arbitration Forum did not receive an electronic copy of the Response by the appropriate deadline.  Thus, the National Arbitration Forum does not consider this Response to be in compliance with ICANN Rule #5 (a). 

 

On July 6, 2006, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Irving H. Perluss (Retired) as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

INTRODUCTION

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.”

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2)   the 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.

 

PRELIMMINARY PROCEDURAL ISSUES

      1.   Apparently, Respondent did not submit its Response in compliance with ICANN Rule #5 (a), because the Response was not received in electronic copy by the appropriate deadline.  Nevertheless, the alleged deficient Response will be accepted and considered.  See J.W. Spear & Sons PLC v. Fun League Mgmt., FA 180628 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (finding that where Respondent submitted a timely Response electronically, but failed to submit a hard copy of the Response on time, “[t]he Panel is of the view that given the technical nature of the breach and the need to resolve the real dispute between the parties that this submission should be allowed and given due weight”); see also Strum v. Nordic Net Exch. AB, FA 102843 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2002) (finding that ruling a Response inadmissible because of formal deficiencies would be an extreme remedy that is inconsistent with the principles of due process).

 

      2.   Respondent has established that she is the victim of identity theft, and that the actual identity of the registrant of the <natwestblklondon.com> domain name is unknown.  In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the respondent’s personal information from the decision in an attempt to protect the respondents claiming to be victims of identity theft from any further injury.  See Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsifargo.com>, FA 466104 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2005).  According to Policy ¶ 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.”  It is determined, accordingly, that the previous decisions will be followed and that the circumstances of the present case, including the claim of identity theft by Respondent, warrant the redaction of Respondent’s information from the Panel’s decision.

 

PRELIMINARY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE

This is a most unusual matter because, on the one hand, the named and nominal Respondent disclaims any interest in the disputed domain name.  She has demonstrated that she is the victim of identity theft.  On the other hand, the true registrant of the disputed domain name does not and cannot assert rights to the disputed domain name under the universal rule of law variously entitled equitable estoppel, estoppel in pais, estoppel by conduct or estoppel by misrepresentation.  See 28 Am. Jur. 2d Estoppel & Waiver § 287 et seq. (2000).  He, she, or it by virtue of fraud simply cannot claim any interest in the disputed domain name, and, indeed, no claim has been made.  Thus, under the circumstances here presented, the Panelist believes that it is not necessary to have an elaborate discussion of the Policy formulae, and we shall cut to the quick.

 

Complainant, at the very least, because of the evidence presented has established a prima facie case entitling it to the disputed domain name, because of confusing similarity, legitimate interest and rights, and registration and use in bad faith.

 

Respondent does not deny the charges, and asserts no interest in the disputed domain name.  The actual registrant, the unknown thief, can make no claim whatever, and has not.  Complainant, accordingly, is entitled to have the disputed domain name transferred to it.

 

DECISION

It is Ordered that the <natwestbklondon.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

JUDGE IRVING H. PERLUSS (Retired), Panelist
Dated:  July 20, 2006