National Arbitration Forum


DECISION Limited v. Mikael Karlsson

Claim Number: FA0802001152958



Complainant is Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Adam Taylor, of Adlex Solicitors, London, United Kingdom.  Respondent is Mikael Karlsson (“Respondent”), Nebraska, USA.



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



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.


Flip Petillion as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 21, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 25, 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 28, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 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 by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 6, 2008.


On March 11, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Flip Petillion as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant


Complainant makes the following assertions:


1. The <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.


2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the <> domain name.


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


B. Respondent


Respondent asserts that the <> domain name does not belong to him and never has. He argues that his credit card was used fraudulently to register the <> domain name.




Complainant runs an international online dating agency service for singles seeking serious friendships and relationships.


Complainant has traded under the names DATING DIRECT and DATINGDIRECT.COM since launching a website at <> in 1999.


Complainant owns registered trademarks.


The Domain was registered on September 17, 2007.


As of October 10, 2007, the Domain resolved to a website <> which offers adult relationship services.


The Complainant’s solicitor sent a cease-and-desist communication by e-mail on October 10, 2007. A further letter was sent to the physical address of Respondent on November 1, 2007.


Respondent replied on November 9, 2007 stating that the domain had been fraudulently registered using his address and information, and that he had informed the hosting company to request immediate termination of the site.


On January 16, 2008, the website was removed.



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.


Respondent claims he is the victim of identity theft, and thus alleges that he did not register and is not using the disputed domain name. 


Respondent has consented to judgment in favor of Complainant and authorized the immediate transfer of the subject domain name.  Respondent furthermore does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the <> 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.”).



Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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




Flip Petillion, Panelist
Dated: March 26, 2008







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum