National Arbitration Forum




Ace Cash Express, Inc. v. Ascent Info

Claim Number: FA0801001139091



Complainant is Ace Cash Express, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kay Lyn Schwartz, of Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP, Texas, USA.  Respondent is Ascent Info (“Respondent”), Indiana, USA.



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



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 January 18, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 22, 2008.


On January 21, 2008, 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 January 24, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 13, 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.


A timely Response was received on February 13, 2008.  However, the Response was deemed deficient pursuant to Rule 5 because a hard copy of the Response was not received.


On February 18, 2008, Complainant and Respondent jointly requested a Stay pursuant to NAF Supplemental Rule 6(b)(i).  In accordance with the Parties’ Request, the National Arbitration Forum stayed the matter for a period of forty-five (45) days.  On April 4, 2008, the Stay was lifted and the matter was reinstated pursuant to Supplemental Rule 6(b)(ii).


On April 7, 2008, 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


Ace Cash Express is a leading retailer of financial services, including check cashing, short term consumer loans, bill payment and prepaid debit card services, and the largest owner, operator and franchisor of check cashing stores in the United States.

As a result of Ace Cash Express’ extensive use and promotion of the ACE marks, the ACE marks have become widely known and recognized among consumers throughout the United States and abroad as identifying Ace Cash Express as the source of quality financial services.  Consequently, Ace Cash Express has acquired valuable rights and substantial goodwill in its ACE marks, and associated federal registrations.

Ace Cash Express’ service mark rights in its “ACE” marks have been uniformly recognized by previous ICANN Panels. Ace Cash Express has used continuously, since at least as early as 1989, and is currently using, the service mark “ACE”, as well as various other “ACE” and “ACE CASH” derivative marks in connection with its various financial services (collectively the “ACE marks”).

The domain name at issue, <>, is identical or confusingly similar to service marks in which Ace Cash Express has rights.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, <>.

The domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.


B. Respondent


The Response was submitted by e-mail to the Forum.  The e-mail states that Respondent has voluntarily withdrawn the disputed domain name and is in no way interested in the domain name any more and has no objection to transferring the said domain to Complainant.



No contested issues are present in this case.  Complainant demands that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant and Respondent agrees that the disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



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.”


Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:


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

(2)   the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)   the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


In cases of this kind, where there are no contested issues for decision, a formal analysis under the UDRP is unnecessary.  Respondent does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the <> domain name.   Respondent has consented to judgment in favor of Complainant and authorized the immediate transfer of the domain name.  The Panel has decided 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., FA133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) in which the domain name was transferred where the respondent stipulated to the transfer. See also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA212653 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) which held “In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to 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, FA475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005).



Complainant having demanded that the disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant and Respondent having agreed to the transfer from Respondent to Complainant and such agreement being proper under the 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: April 20, 2008






Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum