National Arbitration Forum




Citigroup Inc. v. Domain Privacy LTD a/k/a DNS Admin

Claim Number: FA0911001295997




Complainant is Citigroup Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Illinois, USA.  Respondent is Domain Privacy LTD a/k/a DNS Admin (“Respondent”), Massachusetts, USA.




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




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.


Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.




Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 23, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 25, 2009.


On November 24, 2009, Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Pty Ltd. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Pty Ltd. 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 December 2, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of December 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.


A Response was received on December 9, 2009.  However because this Response was received not in hard copy the National Arbitration Forum does not consider this Response to be in compliance with ICANN Rule 5.   Nevertheless, because Respondent consents to the transfer of the domain name, the Response will be considered.


On December 16, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.




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




Respondent is a proxy service and is not the beneficial owner of the domain.  Its practice is to terminate service in response to a UDRP complaint and replace its information with the actual contact information of the domain holder.  But the registrar placed a hold on the account before the Respondent received notice of this proceeding.


The record reflects, however, a communication between the Respondent and the owner of the domain, Abadaba S.A., in which the Respondent asked the owner how it would like to respond to the Complaint.  Abadaba S.A. responded: “They can have that domain.  Go ahead and turn it over to them.” 


Accordingly, because the Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel chooses to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and orders 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.”); 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 Respondent having consented to the transfer of the domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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



Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: December 28, 2009







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum