National Arbitration Forum




The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. Guaranteed Sales a/k/a Paul Sellers

Claim Number: FA0811001233514



Complainant is The American Automobile Association, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Erin C. Smith, of Covington & Burling LLP, California, USA.  Respondent is Guaranteed Sales a/k/a Paul Sellers (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.



The domain names at issue are <> and <>, registered with, 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.


Hector A. Manoff as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 11, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 12, 2008.


On November 12, 2008,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> and <> domain names are registered with, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the names., Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the, 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 November 13, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of December 3, 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 and by e-mail.


Respondent’s timely Response was received in electronic copy on December 3, 2008; however no hard copy was received prior to the Response deadline.  Thus the National Arbitration Forum does not consider the Response to be in compliance with ICANN Rule 5.


On December 11, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hector A. Manoff as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

Complainant makes the following assertions:


a.       The domain names <> and <> are confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which Complainant has rights;

b.      Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names that are subject to the Complaint;

c.       Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith.


B. Respondent

Respondent does not contest any of Complainant’s assertions. Instead, he consents to the transfer of the domain names at issue.



The Panel will not make any findings of fact, for the reasons explained below.



Paragraph 15(a) of 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."


Procedural Issue: Deficient Response


Respondent filed a deficient Response because no hard copy was received.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s submission did not comply with ICANN Rule 5 (a).


However, the Panel determines to accept the Response despite this deficiency. See Strum v. Nordic Net Exch. AB, FA 180628 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (“[R]uling a Response inadmissible because of formal deficiencies would be an extreme remedy not consistent with the basic principles of due process…”); see also J.W. Spear & Sons PLC v. Fun League Mgmt., FA 180628 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (finding that where Respondent submitted a timely Response electronically, but failed to submit a hard copy of the Response on time, “[t]he Panel is of the view that given the technical nature of the breach and the need to resolve the real dispute between the parties that this submission should be allowed and given due weight”).


Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer the Subject Domain Names


Respondent does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the <> and <> domain names.  Rather, Respondent has consented to judgment in favor of Complainant and authorizes the immediate transfer of the subject domain names.  Therefore, the Panel decides to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain names.  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 that both parties consent to a transfer of the <> and <> domain names under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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




Hector A. Manoff, Panelist
Dated: December 25, 2008



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum