National Arbitration Forum




UnitedHealth Group Incorporated v. RareNames, WebReg

Claim Number: FA0708001072879



Complainant is UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Timothy M. Kenny, of Fulbright & Jaworski, 2100 IDS Center, 80 S. Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402.  Respondent is RareNames, WebReg (“Respondent”), represented by Ann Lamport Hammitte, of Lowrie, Lando & Anastasi, LLP, One Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142.




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



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.


John J. Upchurch as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 30, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 31, 2007.


On August 31, 2007, Domaindiscover confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Domaindiscover and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Domaindiscover has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domaindiscover 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 September 12, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of October 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 by e-mail.


On October 1, 2007, a Joint Request to Stay the Administrative Proceeding was filed with the National Arbitration Forum.  The National Arbitration Forum subsequently granted this request. 


On November 15, 2007, Complainant requested that the Stay of Arbitration be lifted.  On November 16, 2007, the National Arbitration Forum lifted the Stay of Arbitration, and extended the deadline by which Respondent could submit a timely Response to November 17, 2007. 


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 15, 2007.


An Additional Submission from Complainant was received and determined to be timely and complete on November 20, 2007.


An Additional Submission from Respondent was received and determined to be timely on November 26, 2007.


On November 27, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

            Consent to Transfer the Subject Domain Name


Respondent denies that it registered the <> domain name in bad faith.  However, Respondent has authorized the immediate transfer of the subject domain name.  The Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name.  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.”).




The requested transfer should be granted, and the Panel elects to forego the ordinary UDRP analysis.



The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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






John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated:  December 11, 2007


National Arbitration Forum





Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page