national arbitration forum




University of Pittsburgh v. Jude Vaz

Claim Number: FA0808001219797



Complainant is University of Pittsburgh (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Illinois, USA.  Respondent is Jude Vaz (“Respondent”), India.



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



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.


Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 8, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 11, 2008.


On August 11, 2008, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current 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 August 15, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 4, 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.


Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.


On September 12, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceding.


Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent."  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.



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



A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:


Complainant has been offering educational services for undergraduate, graduate, postgraduate and professional students under the UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH service mark since 1908. 


Complainant registered the UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Registration No. 1,240,632, issued May 31, 1983). 


Respondent’s <> domain name was registered on November 11, 2005, and currently resolves to a commercial website prominently displaying Complainant’s mark and logo.


Respondent’s <> domain name is identical to Complainant’s UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH mark.


Respondent does not have any rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name <>.


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


B.  Respondent failed to submit a compliant Response to the Complaint in this proceeding.  However, in correspondence addressed to Complainant under date of August 18, 2008, Respondent declared that it “will most surely be pleased to transfer the domain name [in issue] to your University.”


Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following in order to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:


i.         the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

ii.       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

iii.      the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


Notwithstanding the foregoing, 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.”


Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions (see Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Ar. Forum Jan. 13, 2004);  see also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 24, 2005)). 



Correspondence submitted by Respondent in lieu of a response to the Complaint does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, and, in particular, does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. Rather, Respondent has offered in the same correspondence to transfer the subject domain name to Complainant. Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.


It is therefore Ordered that the <> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.





Terry F. Peppard, 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