national arbitration forum




WorldPay Limited v. Brittany A. Bonesteel

Claim Number: FA0712001124018



Complainant is WorldPay Limited (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP, Post Office Drawer 1389, Raleigh, NC 27602.  Respondent is Brittany A. Bonesteel (“Respondent”), represented by Charles H. Gaffney, of Gaffney & Gaffney, PO Box 3716, Kingston, NY 12402.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.



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.


Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 20, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 21, 2007.


On January 6, 2008, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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 January 8, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 28, 2008 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.


Respondent failed to file a Response to the Complaint compliant with the requirements of the Policy.  It has, however, filed correspondence dated January 22, 2008, making allegations pertinent to the proceeding, which will be considered.


On February 5, 2008, 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 a compliant Response from Respondent.



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



A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:


Complainant has developed secure electronic payment processing systems since 1993. 


Complainant’s services allow merchants to accept payments over the Internet and by phone, fax, and mail. 


Complainant registered the WORLDPAY mark with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) on November 17, 2000 (Reg. No. 2,230,627); the European Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) on April 3, 2002 (Reg. No. 1,945,310); and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on May 18, 1999 (Reg. No. 2,245,537). 


Complainant also owns the registrations for the <>, <>, and <> domain names, and markets its services through its official website that resolves from the <> domain name. 


Respondent registered the <> domain name on February 27, 2007. 


As of March 14, 2007, Respondent was using the disputed domain name to operate a website that redirected Internet users to Complainant’s official website. 


Currently, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 


Respondent’s <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WORLDPAY mark.


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


Respondent registered and used the <> domain name in bad faith.


B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response compliant with the requirements of the Policy. Its deficient Response does not deny the material allegations of the Complaint, but recites, in pertinent part, as follows: 


Respondent never applied to use the disputed domain name, as alleged in the Complaint, and did not create that domain name.


Respondent has never used the e-mail address or telephone number attributed to it in the Complaint herein.


Respondent is the victim of identity theft in the creation of the disputed domain name.



Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:


i.         the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

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.


Notwithstanding the foregoing, 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.”


Further, Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, where a party fails to comply with requirements laid on by the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from that failure as it considers appropriate.   



It appears from the record that Respondent does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, except as to its identity as a proper party to this proceeding.  It further appears that Respondent does not object to Complainant’s request for the transfer to it of the subject domain name as prayed for in the Complaint, so that the parties have tacitly agreed to the transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.  In the exceptional circumstances here presented, we conclude that no worthwhile purpose would be served by a rendition of findings otherwise customary in proceedings of this sort. 


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





Terry F. Peppard, Panelist

Dated:  February 13, 2008



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum