National Arbitration Forum




NGP Software, Inc. v. Planetary Corporation

Claim Number: FA0901001244747



Complainant is NGP Software, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Collin B. Foulds, of Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., Minnesota, USA.  Respondent is Planetary Corporation (“Respondent”), represented by J. Blair Richardson, Virginia, USA.



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


Bruce E. O’Connor, as Panelist.



This decision is being rendered in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the National Arbitration Forum’s UDRP Supplemental Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).


Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 27, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 28, 2009.


On January 28, 2009,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name., 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 the Policy.


On February 2, 2009, Complainant filed the Complaint by e-mail with the National Arbitration Forum, and sent a copy by e-mail to the Respondent.


On February 3, 2009 Respondent sent an e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum, stating that it had no desire or intent to “confuse” anyone as to the source of the information at its website using the domain name at issue, and inquiring as to the procedure for relinquishing the domain name to Complainant.  Respondent also sent an e-mail to Complainant, stating its intent to relinquish the domain name to Complainant and inquiring as to a preferred method to expedite the transfer.


On February 9, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 2, 2009 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 March 2, 2009.


On March 6, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. O’Connor as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

Complainant is the owner of the trademark NGP.


The domain name at issue is confusingly similar to that trademark.


Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name at issue.


Respondent registered and has used that domain name at its website in bad faith.


Complainant states that the parties are presently engaged in a legal dispute in another forum regarding false advertising and related claims, but that the domain name at issue is not a subject of that dispute.


B. Respondent

Respondent contends that it has disabled its website and consents to transfer of the domain name to Complainant.


Respondent contends that Complainant’s evidence shows no evidence of an attempt to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.  Rather, Respondent contends that Complainant’s evidence shows that the website was set up by Respondent to provide a means by which visitors could ask Nathaniel G. Pearlman (“NGP”) questions about his company’s deceptive marketing.


Respondent states that there are other legal proceedings between the parties, and that none have been commenced or terminated in connection with or relating to the domain name at issue.



Complainant seeks transfer of the domain name at issue, and Respondent consents to that transfer.  As discussed below, there will be no other findings in this matter.



¶ 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.


 ¶ 4(i) of the Rules states that the remedies available to Complainant shall be limited to requiring the cancellation of the domain name or transfer of the domain name to the Complainant.


¶ 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.”


After the initiation of this proceeding, the registrar,, Inc., placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain name while this proceeding is still pending.  Where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name, but instead agrees to transfer the domain name at issue to Complainant, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the domain name.  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.”).


Other panels have decided to proceed with analysis and findings under ¶ 4(a) of the UDRP despite the Respondent’s consent to transfer.  See President and Fellow of Harvard Coll. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc. NA NA, D2008-0597 (WIPO July 7, 2008) (“Respondent consistently request that the transfer be compelled without consideration of the factors.  This Panel cannot condone Respondent’s conduct in such manner.  In the present case, Respondent has acted in serious bad faith”); see also Graebel Van Lines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 1195954 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2008) (“Respondent has admitted in his response to the complaint of Complainant that it is ready to offer the transfer without inviting the decision of the Panel in accordance with the Policy.  However, in the facts of this case, the Panel is of the view that the transfer of the disputed domain name deserves to be along with the findings in accordance with the Policy.”).


This Panel finds it appropriate to grant Respondent’s request to transfer under ¶ 15(a) of the Rules, without making findings under ¶ 4(a).  ¶ 4(i) of the Policy limits the remedies of Complainant, to either cancellation or transfer of the disputed domain name.  The consent to transfer gives Complainant the relief to which it is entitled and that the Panel is authorized to give – nothing less, nothing more.



For the foregoing reason, the Panel orders that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.







Bruce E. O’Connor, Panelist
Dated: March 20, 2009







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum