National Arbitration Forum




PSC Management Limited Partnership v. CyberWart c/o Matthew Wollenweber

Claim Number: FA0807001216455



Complainant is PSC Management Limited Partnership (“Complainant”), represented by Cathryn Berryman, of Winstead, P.C., Texas, USA.  Respondent is CyberWart c/o Matthew Wollenweber (“Respondent”), represented by Edward Weiss, of Bregman, Berbert, Schwartz & Gilday, LLC, Maryland, USA.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Fastdomain, 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.


Robert  T. Pfeuffer, Senior District Judge, as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 18, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 21, 2008.


On August 4, 2008, Fastdomain, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Fastdomain, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Fastdomain, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fastdomain, 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 August 12, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September 2, 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 September 2, 2008.


On September 8, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Robert T. Pfeuffer, Senior District Judge, as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to various service marks in which Complainant has rights, but Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.


B. Respondent

Respondent does not contest any of the allegations in the Complaint and has agreed with counsel for Complainant that it will transfer to Complainant the domain name in dispute and further agrees that the Tribunal will dismiss the proceeding with prejudice as to Complainant and Respondent.


C. Additional Submissions

In correspondence received by the National Arbitration Forum from Complainant, its counsel Ms. Cathryn Barryman, has pointed out that the settlement agreement was that Complainant would consent to the dismissal of the proceedings with prejudice by the Tribunal as long as such dismissal occurred only after the Tribunal transferred the domain name in dispute to Complainant.



The Panelist is convinced from the submission by Respondent that it fully consents to the transfer of the <> domain name to Complainant forthwith.  As a result, the Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, it would be prudent for the Panel to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <> domain name.  It is so Ordered by the Panel.  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 Maley 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 so determined the appropriate disposition of this case as set out above, the Panel concludes that the relief sought by Complainant is GRANTED in all things.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant and upon such occurrence this Complaint is dismissed with prejudice as to both Complainant and Respondent.



Robert T. Pfeuffer, Senior District Judge, Panelist
Dated: September 23, 2008



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum