National Arbitration Forum
National Westminster Bank plc v. [REDACTED]
Claim Number: FA0807001215821
Complainant is National Westminster Bank plc (“Complainant”), represented by James
A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP, North
Carolina, USA. Respondent is [REDACTED]
(“Respondent”), represented by Jan Zirn, of [REDACTED], Germany.
DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <natwestbanks.net>, registered with Enetica Pty
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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on July 16, 2008; the National
Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July
On July 28, 2008, Enetica Pty Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <natwestbanks.net> domain name is
registered with Enetica Pty Ltd and that
the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enetica Pty
Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enetica Pty Ltd 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 July 31, 2008, a Notification of
Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of August 20, 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 firstname.lastname@example.org by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 15, 2008.
On August 19, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
Complainant makes the following assertions:
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NATWEST mark.
does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <natwestbanks.net> domain name.
registered and used the <natwestbanks.net>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent makes
the following assertions:
did not register the disputed domain name, does not know who did and was unaware of Complainant’s business
until the commencement of these proceedings.
does not contest the relief requested by Complainant and urges that the Panel grant such relief
Issue: Redaction of Respondent’s Identity
Complaint and WHOIS information list the Respondent and registrant,
respectively, as [REDACTED]. In its
Response, Respondent contends it has been the victim of identity theft. Respondent asserts that its company name is
[REDACTED] and that it has never used [REDACTED] in its name. Respondent states that it “consists of a
group of companies of in total 160 people in several locations in Germany, United
Kingdom, and the United States,” and that it
“provides services to enterprise customers regarding centralization of IT,
application delivery, and application hosting.”
Respondent further urges that financial institutions like Complainant
are important customers, and that Respondent’s business model would be misused
if it utilized its customers’ marks.
Respondent also argues that the contact details provided in the
Complaint do not correspond to any of Respondent’s personnel, and that a third
party misappropriated Respondent’s address for registration of the disputed
domain name. Respondent states that
although the WHOIS record provides Respondent’s information, Respondent did not
register the disputed domain name and was unaware of Complainant’s business
until the commencement of these proceedings.
Respondent is a victim of identity theft and the Panel elects to redact
Respondent’s personal information from the decision to prevent the further
victimization of Respondent. In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John
Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo
& Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA
453727 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the
respondents’ personal information from the decisions in an attempt to protect
the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft from becoming
aligned with acts the actual registrants appeared to have sought to impute to
the respondents. See also Nat’l
Westminster Bank plc v. [Redacted], FA 1028337 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 25, 2007). According to Policy ¶ 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy
will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative
Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its
decision.” Consequently, the Panel may
determine the circumstances of the present case, including the claim of
identity theft by Respondent, warrant the redaction of Respondent’s personal
information from the Panel’s decision.
is clear from the Response that Respondent does not contest the relief
requested by Complainant and urges that the Panel grant such relief. Accordingly, it is not necessary for the
Panel to engage in analysis of the traditional elements of the Policy before
granting such relief.
The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <natwestbanks.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: August 21,
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Here to return to our Home Page