National Arbitration Forum




Daimler AG v. Thomas Keeley

Claim Number: FA1005001323956



Complainant is Daimler AG (“Complainant”), represented by Jan Zecher, of Fish & Richardson P.C, Germany.  Respondent is Thomas Keeley (“Respondent”), Milwaukee, 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.


Richard DiSalle as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 11, 2010.


On May 12, 2010,, 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 13, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 2, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to  Also on May 13, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 25, 2010.


On May 28, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Richard DiSalle as Panelist.



Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.  In his Response, Respondent also requests that the Panel transfer the domain name to Complainant.



Under the circumstances, since Respondent has agreed that the Panel should comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel decides it to be expedient and judicious to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and concludes that the relief requested should be granted.


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




Richard DiSalle, Panelist
Dated: June 8, 2010