National Arbitration Forum




Longhua USA Inc., d/b/a iFLOOR v. Riverwoods Flooring

Claim Number: FA0905001263092



Complainant is Longhua USA Inc., d/b/a iFLOOR (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew M. Thomson, of Kronenberger Burgoyne, LLP, California, USA.  Respondent is Riverwoods Flooring (“Respondent”), represented by Jeffrey B. Harding, of MAY OBERFELL LORBER, Indiana, USA.



The domain name at issue is <>, 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.


James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 14, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 18, 2009.


On May 15, 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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).


On May 22, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 11, 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 June 10, 2009.

On June 15, 2009, 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.



            A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:


1.      Respondent’s <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s IFLOOR mark.


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


3.      Respondent registered and used the <> domain name in bad faith.


            B.  Respondent filed a Response consenting to transfer of the domain name at issue to the          Complainant.





Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer


            Respondent consents to transfer the <> domain name to Complainant in its          Response.  However, 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.  The Panel finds that, in a      circumstance such as this, it will 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.”).




The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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




James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: June 26, 2009







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum