National Arbitration Forum

 

DECISION

 

AlixPartners, LLP v. Jay Alix & Associates c/o Domain Administrator

Claim Number: FA0706000998652

 

PARTIES

Complainant is AlixPartners, LLP (“Complainant”), represented by David R. Haarz, of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C., 11730 Plaza America Dr., Suite 600, Reston, VA 20190.  Respondent is Jay Alix & Associates c/o Domain Administrator (“Respondent”), represented by David R. Haarz, of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C., 11730 Plaza America Drive - Suite 600, Reston, VA 20190.

 

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <alixpartner.com>, registered with Nameview, 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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 4, 2007, naming as Respondent the registrant as shown that day in the Registrar’s Whois database, namely “Alixpartner.com c/o Whois Identity Shield” at an address in Vancouver, Canada; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 7, 2007.

 

On June 6, 2007, the Registrar, Nameview, Inc. allowed the name of the registrant in its Whois database to be changed.  It then confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <alixpartner.com> domain name is registered with Nameview, Inc. and named the Respondent, Jay Alix & Associates, as the then current registrant of the name.  Nameview, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nameview, 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 June 7, 2007 the National Arbitration Forum required Complainant to amend the Complaint so as to name Jay Alix & Associates as Respondent and to specify the contact information as then found in the Registrar’s Whois database, this being (subject to a minor typographical error) an address of an affiliate of Complainant. Complainant complied with this requirement and filed an amended Complaint on June 11, 2007.

 

On June 12, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 2, 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@alixpartner.com by e-mail.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 14, 2007.

 

On June 20, 2007, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant and Respondent both request that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The change to the name of the registrant allowed by the Registrar after notice of this Complaint and in violation of the Policy makes this a classic case of cyberflying.

 

Complainant provides business management consultancy services. It owns United States registered trademarks Nos. 2,764,460 and 2,769,352 for ALIXPARTNERS & Design, both issued in September, 2003.  The disputed domain name was registered on May 10, 2005. It did lead to a website which offered links to services which compete with those of Complainant but presently does not lead to an active website.

 

Jay Alix & Associates is the name of a predecessor of Complainant. Whoever registered the disputed domain name still controls it, so filing the amended Complaint is a way to expedite transfer to its rightful owner.

 

The disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALIXPARTNERS mark; whoever controls the domain name has no rights or legitimate interest in relation to it and has registered and is using it in bad faith. 

 

B. Respondent

The name Jay Alix & Associates is currently used by an affiliate of Complainant. Hence Complainant and Respondent are related entities. However, neither has access to the domain name.  Accordingly Respondent is submitting this Response and specifically agrees to the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.

 

 

FINDINGS

Respondent is related to Complainant but the domain name is not under the control of either Respondent or Complainant. The Whois Identity Shield offered by the Registrar has concealed the identity of the person who registered and has control of the domain name.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

 

Where a respondent agrees to comply with a complainant’s request, other panels have held that they may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain name.  See Norgren, Inc. v. Norgren, Inc. c/o Domain Administrator, NAF Case No. FA0603000670051 and Diners Club International Ltd. v. Diners Club International Ltd. c/o Domain Admin, NAF Case No. FA0508000551103. Those cases involved similar behaviour by the present Registrar, Nameview, Inc., in changing the registrant identity after notice of the Complaint.

 

DECISION

Since Respondent consents to the transfer of the domain name to Complainant, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: June 30, 2007

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum