National Arbitration Forum


DECISION Limited v. Christian Demel

Claim Number: FA0910001288584



Complainant is Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Adam Taylor, of Adlex Solicitors, United Kingdom.  Respondent is Christian Demel (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.



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 October 9, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 12, 2009.


On October 9, 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 October 21, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of November 10, 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 deficient Response was received and determined to be complete on November 5, 2009.

An Additional Submission was received from Complainant on November 12, 2009 and determined to be timely and complete pursuant to Supplemental Rule 7.  An Additional Submission was submitted by Respondent on November 23, 2009 which was not timely and complete.


On November 18, 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 identical to Complainant’s DATING DIRECT 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 technically deficient response stating that he was going to                                           abandon the domain. “I will not be renewing it on the 9th November 2009 when my                             ownership of this Domain expires. So the Complainant can snap up the Domain                        name then.”


   C.  Complainant filed an Additional Submission which was taken into consideration.                         Respondent filed a defective and late Additional Submission which was nearly                               identical to the Response and the Panel declined to take it into consideration.



    Preliminary Issue: Deficient Response

Respondent’s Response was submitted only in electronic format prior to the Response deadline.  Thus the National Arbitration Forum does not consider the Response to be in compliance with ICANN Rule 5.  The Panel determines not to consider the Response.  See Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Nowak, D2003-0022 (WIPO Mar. 4, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s failure to submit a hard copy of the response and its failure to include any evidence to support a finding in its favor placed the respondent in a de facto default posture, permitting the panel to draw all appropriate inferences stated in the complaint); 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

            In any event, were the Panel to consider the deficient Response, it would construe it to mean that Respondent consents to transfer the domain name to Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel decides to 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 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 all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, 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: December 2, 2009







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum