National Arbitration Forum




CB TM LLC v. Don Ferreira


Claim Number: FA0707001031701



Complainant is CB TM LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Joan T. Pinaire, 1 Campus Drive, Parsippany, NJ 07054.  Respondent is Don Ferreira (“Respondent”), represented by Timothy A. Hill, P.O. Box 1300, Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352.



The domain names at issue are <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <>, registered with, Inc.



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.


James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 11, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 12, 2007.


On July 11, 2007, Godaddy.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Godaddy.Com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.Com, 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 July 13, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 2, 2007 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,,,,,,,,, and by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 3, 2007.


On , August 18, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed  as Panelist. James A. Carmody, Esq.



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



A. Complainant

1.      Respondent’s <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names (the domain names at issue) are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks.


2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names at issue.


3.      Respondent registered and used the domain names at issue in bad faith.



B. Respondent

            Respondent submitted a Response which did not dispute any of the allegations of the Complainant and consenting to the relief sought by the Complainant.





Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer


Respondent in its Response has not disputed Complainant’s allegations.  Rather, Respondent has requested that the Panel transfer the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names at issue to Complainant as it has requested.  In a circumstance such as this, in which Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain names, it is appropriate to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain names.  See 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 stipulated to the transfer); see also 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 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.”).





Accordingly, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


It is Ordered that the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.




James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: August 27, 2007







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum