national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

National Westminster Bank plc v. TipTopWebsite.com

Claim Number: FA0611000844661

 

PARTIES

Complainant is National Westminster Blank plc (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein L.L.P., Post Office Box 389, Raleigh, NC 27602.  Respondent is TipTopWebsite.com (“Respondent”), 2023 North Atlantic Avenue, #258, Cocoa Beach, FL 32931.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <natwestsupport.net>, registered with Tucows 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.

 

Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 17, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 20, 2006.

 

On November 17, 2006, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <natwestsupport.net> domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Tucows Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows 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 November 20, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 11, 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@natwestsupport.net by e-mail.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On December 19, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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."  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

Complainant is a leading financial institution offering a full range of financial services. 

 

In connection with the provision of these services, Complainant has registered a number of trademarks and service marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) including the NATWEST mark (Reg. No. 1,241,454, issued July 6, 1983).

 

Respondent registered the <natwestsupport.net> domain name on June 20, 2006. 

 

The disputed domain name formerly resolved to a website that purported to be owned by Complainant and currently resolves to no content at all.

 

Respondent’s <natwestsupport.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATWEST mark.

 

Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <natwestsupport.net> domain name.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <natwestsupport.net> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding, but, in written communications with the National Arbitration forum, has indicated that it is willing to transfer all rights in the disputed domain name to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of 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 Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

i.   the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a

     trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

ii.  Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

However, in view of Respondent's failure to submit a formal response to the Complaint herein, the Panel may decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory.  See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that a respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000): “In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”

 

RESPONDENT’S CONSENT TO TRANSFER

Respondent does not oppose, but instead consents, in writing and without reservation, to the requested transfer from Respondent to Complainant of all rights in the domain name <natwestsupport.net>.  Nothing more is required to permit this Panel to order the transfer as requested.  See, for example: Sanofi-Aventis v. Day Corp., D2004-1075 (WIPO Mar. 25, 2005)(citing cases); see also: Qosina Corp. v. Qosmedix Group, D2003-0620 (WIPO Nov. 10, 2003):

The situation in which a respondent has agreed to transfer a domain name during proceedings has been raised a number of times…. In these cases the Panel has consistently taken the view that a situation similar to the situation in the present case is sufficient to deem that the three tests of paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy have been met, and has ordered transfer of the domain name to the Complainant.

It is not necessary, therefore, for this Panel to analyze or rule upon the issues raised in the instant Complaint.

 

DECISION

Respondent having consented to the transfer of rights in the <natwestsupport.net>   domain name from Respondent to Complainant, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <natwestsupport.net> be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Terry F. Peppard, Panelist

Dated:  January 2, 2007

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum