National Arbitration Forum




WorldPay Limited v. Sholeh Sahmoedini

Claim Number: FA0802001152526



Complainant is WorldPay Limited (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP, North Carolina, USA.  Respondent is sholeh sahmoedini (“Respondent”), California, USA.




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.


Dennis A. Foster as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 19, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 20, 2008.


On February 21, 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 the 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 February 27, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 18, 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 and determined to be complete on March 10, 2008.


On March 19, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Dennis A. Foster as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant


- A wholly-owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc since 2002, Complainant  was founded in 1993, and has been at the forefront of developing secure, comprehensive, and straightforward electronic payment processing systems.  With over 20,000 customers doing business via the Internet, Complainant has more than 1,200 strategic banking and e-commerce partners worldwide.


- Complainant owns registrations for its service mark, WORLDPAY, with, among others, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office.


- Complainant also owns numerous domain names featuring its mark, including <>, <>, <>, and <>.


- The domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the name fully incorporates the mark and adds only the generic term “solutions,” and the gTLD, “.com,” neither of which reduces the confusion between the name and the mark.  Complainant’s service mark is the dominant and distinctive part of the disputed domain name.


- Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its WORLDPAY mark, or any variation thereof.


-Respondent cannot establish any of the situations enumerated in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that would support its claim to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Respondent did not engage the name in a “bona fide offering of goods or services.”  Respondent is not known commonly by that name.  Finally, Respondent’s employment of the disputed domain name did not constitute “noncommercial or fair use” of the name.


- The disputed domain name was registered and  is being used in bad faith.  Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s mark.  Before being deactivated, the web site located at the said domain name contained links to Complainant’s web site.  It can be inferred reasonably that Respondent collected referral fees for linking Internet users to Complainant’s web site.  Redirection of Internet users to the Complainant’s web site is evidence of a bad faith use of a confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain.


B. Respondent


- Respondent has been the victim of identity theft and never registered the domain name at issue.  Thus, Respondent does not dispute any of Complainant’s contentions and is willing to transfer all of her rights in the name to Complainant.



Complainant and Respondent agree that the disputed domain name, <>, should be transferred 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.


The Panel determines that Respondent has agreed genuinely to transfer whatever rights she possesses in the disputed domain name to Complainant.  As a result, the Panel finds no dispute in this case to be resolved.  Thus, without analyzing the parties’ contentions or rendering findings pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel will direct a transfer of the disputed domain name forthwith.  For supporting UDRP cases, see Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Elmer Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“…under 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.”); and The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, D2005-1132 (WIPO Jan. 5, 2006).





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




Dennis A. Foster, Panelist
Dated: April 2, 2008







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum