National Arbitration Forum




Diners Club International Ltd. v. Paul Coppinger

Claim Number: FA0707001032051



Complainant is Diners Club International Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60601.  Respondent is Paul Coppinger (“Respondent”), represented by Michael Lang, of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., One Arizona Center, Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202.




The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Enom, Inc.



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.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 12, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 13, 2007.


On July 13, 2007, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 16, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 6, 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 by e-mail.


On August 3, 2007, Respondent requested, with Complainant’s consent, that Respondent be allowed additional time to file a Response.  The National Arbitration Forum subsequently granted Respondent’s request, extending the date by which Respondent could submit a timely Response to August 27, 2007.  


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 27, 2007.


On August 31, 2007, 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.



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



A. Complainant

            Diners Club is a leading provider of financial services to individuals, small businesses, and large corporations through many channels of trade, including but not limited to, credit card services.  The credit cards issued by Diners Club are accepted in over 200 countries and at over 7.6 million locations around the world.

            Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, a leading global financial services organization.  The credit cards issued by Complainant are accepted at over 800,000 ATMs and are issued in 64 local currencies.  Complainant has over 8 million individual cardholders.

            Complainant holds numerous registrations for the DINERS trademarks and service marks in the United States and Europe.  The marks include DINERS, DINERS CLUB, DINERS CLUB INTERNATIONAL, among others referred to by Complainant as “The DINERS CLUB FAMILY”.

            On May, 28, 2006, Respondent registered the <DINERSWEB.COM> domain name.

            Respondent uses the domain name to resolve to a website promoting competing financial services.

            Complainant has not given Respondent any license, permission, or authorization by which Respondent could make any use of any of its marks.


B. Respondent

            Respondent’s Response And Stipulation To Transfer, while denying bad faith and asserting that Complainant has no trademark registration for DINERSWEB, and without admitting liability or any wrongdoing, consents to the transfer of the domain name to Complainant.  Respondent further requests that the Panel forego the usual UDRP analysis and “simply make an order for the transfer of the domain name to Complainant.”





1.      Since both Complainant and Respondent have requested the Panel to transfer the <DINERSWEB.COM> domain name from Respondent to Complainant, there exists no dispute between the parties, and the Panel accepts the joint request.



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 consented to judgment in favor of Complainant and has requested the immediate transfer of the subject domain name. Under these circumstances, the Panel is authorized to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Cayman Web Dev., FA133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) which held that it was proper to transfer a domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer.  See also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA475191 (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.”). 

            In the case of Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA212653 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004), the Panel held as follows;  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 of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”

            Based upon the precedent of these cases, and the facts and circumstances of this case, the Panel sees no requirement to make a formal UDRP analysis, and finds it proper to transfer the domain name at issue to Complainant.



The Parties having jointly requested that the <> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant and such joint request being proper under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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





Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: September 14, 2007






Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum