American Century Proprietary Holdings, Inc v. Ted Chen
Claim Number: FA0703000934415
PARTIES
Complainant is American Century Proprietary Holdings,
Inc (“Complainant”), represented by Mark A. Nieds, of Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd.,
REGISTRAR AND
DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <americancenturymortgage.info>, registered with Moniker Online Services Inc.
PANEL
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.
Robert T. Pfeuffer, Senior District Judge, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 8, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 9, 2007.
On March 16, 2007, Moniker Online Services Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <americancenturymortgage.info> domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services 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 March 19, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 9, 2007 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 postmaster@americancenturymortgage.info by e-mail.
A Response was received electronically before the deadline for Response, but the National Arbitration Forum did not receive a hard copy of the Response until after the deadline. As a result, the Response has been deemed deficient pursuant to Supplemental Rule 5.
Respondent has provided a Response
that was deficient because the National Arbitration Forum has determined that a
hard copy of the Response was not received by the response deadline. It is within the sole discretion of the Panel
to decide whether or not to consider Respondent’s submission because it is not
in compliance with ICANN Rule 5. The
Panel has determined that there is ample precedent for it to consider the
Response notwithstanding the technical violation of the Rule. In Strum v. Nordic Net
On
April 16, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the
National Arbitration Forum appointed Robert T. Pfeuffer, Senior District Judge as
Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Respondent
has agreed to transfer the <americancenturymortgage.info> domain name registration to Complainant and is
willing to forego further action. Respondent
does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the disputed domain
name. The Panel has decided that in a
circumstance such as this, where Respondent has agreed to transfer and does not
contest any of Complainant’s allegations, it would be appropriate for the Panel
to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the
domain name. See 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.”).
DECISION
The Panel having found that no contest exists between the parties, that they both request the transfer of the disputed domain name be accomplished from Respondent to Complainant and that Respondent has agreed to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, it is therefore the conclusion of the Panel that the relief shall be granted in all things.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <americancenturymortgage.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
ROBERT T. PFEUFFER,
Senior District Judge, Panelist
Dated: April 26, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum