National Arbitration Forum




Intelius Inc. v. Bridge Port Enterprises Limited c/o Bridge Port

Claim Number: FA0906001270254



Complainant is Intelius Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Parna A. Mehrbani, of Lane Powell PC, Oregon, USA.  Respondent is Bridge Port Enterprises Limited c/o Bridge Port (“Respondent”), Antigua and Barbuda.



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


Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 24, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 26, 2009.


On June 28, 2009, Active Registrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Active Registrar, Inc., that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name, and that the Registrar would shortly thereafter place the domain name on “Registrar-Hold.”  Active Registrar, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the Active Registrar, 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 July 2, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 22, 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.


An informal Response was received in electronic form on July 14, 2009.  Since no hard copy was received by the Response deadline, the informal Response is considered deficient under ICANN Rule 5.  Nevertheless the Panel has had regard to it.


On July 30, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

Complainant is the registered proprietor of United States federally registered trademark No. 3,096,294 INTELIUS, registered on May 23, 2006.  Complainant says the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.    


B. Respondent

Respondent’s informal Response reads in full: “We agree to release the domain immediately if the lock is lifted to allow us to do so.”



In light of Respondent’s consent, Complainant is entitled to transfer of the disputed domain name.



In a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but agrees to transfer it 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.”).



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





Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: August 10, 2009







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum