The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Kimberly Richards
Claim Number: FA0804001179260
Complainant is The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (“Complainant”), represented by James
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <infos-rbs.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
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.
David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 21, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 22, 2008.
On April 22, 2008, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <infos-rbs.com> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that the Respondent is identified as the registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 April 23, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 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 email@example.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 8, 2008.
On May 19, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Complainant, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group
plc (“Complainant”), seeks transfer of the disputed domain name <infos-rbs.com> from Respondent, Kimberly
Respondent contends that she is the victim of identity theft and took no part in the registration of the disputed domain name. As such, Respondent does not dispute any of Complainant’s allegations, and does not challenge Complainant’s claim for transfer of the domain.
Complainant has established, and Respondent does not contest, that Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations and that the domain name at issue <infos-rbs.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registrations. Since Respondent consents to the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant, the Panel forgoes an analysis of the issues and directs the transfer of the domain name 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.
Respondent contends that she is the victim of identity theft, took no part in the registration of the disputed domain name, does not dispute any of Complainant’s allegations and does not contest transfer of the domain name to Complainant. Respondent has submitted proof of her efforts to conduct a criminal investigation into the identity theft for the improper purposes of the registration of the domain name at issue. Based upon the submissions provided, it appears that Respondent Kimberly Richards is an innocent victim and has not engaged in any wrongful, or bad faith conduct in regard to matters pertaining to this case.
Where Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name. See Martin Biochem, Inc. v. Crosby, FA 1008277 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2007); see also 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.”).
Both parties having consented to the transfer of the domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <infos-rbs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David P. Miranda, Esq., Panelist
Dated: June 2, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum