national arbitration forum




Vacation Publications, Inc. v. Portfolio Brains, LLC

Claim Number: FA0801001139522



Complainant is Vacation Publications, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Emerson Hankamer, Texas, USA.  Respondent is Portfolio Brains, LLC (“Respondent”), California, USA.



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.


Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 21, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 24, 2008.


On January 21, 2008,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <>, <> and <> domain names are registered with, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names., Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the, 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 January 29, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 19, 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, and by e-mail.


On February 25, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's requesting to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.


On February 26, 2008, a Response was received and determined to be deficient.  However, the Panel chose to consider its contents. 




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



The Respondent submitted an Answer to the Complaint wherein;


“Respondent stipulates that it is willing to voluntarily transfer of the Domain Names to the Complainant.  For the reasons stated below, Respondent respectfully requests that the transfer be ordered without findings of fact or conclusions as to Policy 4(a) other than the Domain Names be transferred.”


The said Answer was received on a date past the deadline thereby exposing Respondent to a decision based upon its default. However, the Arbitrator found that “Exceptional Circumstances” (Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy Section 14) had been exhibited and permitted the Answer to be considered, with the observation that since the Complainant was then at the disadvantage  time wise in not being able to submit a Reply to the Answer,  the Complainant was specifically permitted to thereupon serve a Reply, but it would be limited to any objection or reason why the Panel should not grant the Respondent’s request “that the Domain Names be transferred to Complainant without further findings of fact or liability.  The Complainant has failed to Reply.


The Panel notes that Respondent has not disputed Complainant’s allegations.  Rather, Respondent has requested that the Panel transfer the <>, <> and <> domain names.  The Panel  finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain names, the Panel may decide 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 feels it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).



The Complainant having brought on this proceed for an order directing the Respondent to transfer to it three domain names: <>, <> and <> and the Respondent have consented thereto


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




Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist

Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)


Dated:  March 27, 2008



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum