DECISION

 

Barclays PLC v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group

Claim Number: FA2509002176533

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Barclays PLC ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Chad Moston / Elite Media Group ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <barclaycard-us.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 11, 2025; Forum received payment on September 11, 2025.

 

On September 12, 2025, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <barclaycard-us.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.Com, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.Com, Llc registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On September 16, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 6, 2025 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 postmaster@barclaycard-us.com. Also on September 16, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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.

 

Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On October 9, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES: REQUEST FOR REDACTION

On September 17, 2025, Forum received an email from Respondent stating, in pertinent part: "I respectfully request, under applicable privacy laws, that my personal identifying information (including my name) be redacted from the public record and decision. Please substitute my name with "Registrant of barclaycard-us.com" or other generic wording in place of my name.." 

 

The Panel notes that Policy ¶ 4(j) states that UDRP decisions "will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision." The rationale for restriction to exceptional cases has been explained as being due to the fact that "[p]ublication of party names in UDRP decisions is useful to the overall functioning of the UDRP process which is designed to be transparent in that it helps to explain the panel's findings, supports jurisprudential consistency, educates others, aims to promote good behavior in the domain name space, and furthermore can be used to illustrate a pattern." ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. J. K., D2025-1989 (WIPO July 22, 2025).

 

Panels have redacted party names for a number of reasons including where a Respondent claims, and provides persuasive evidence in support of, identity theft or being subject to some other significant threat; See The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. [Redacted], FA 1282153 (Forum Oct. 28, 2009) ("Respondent claims to have been a victim of identity theft, asserting (with supporting evidence) that Respondent's name was used fraudulently to register the disputed domain name, and that Respondent has attempted unsuccessfully to close or modify the domain name registration account that was opened by a third party in Respondent's name.").

 

In the present case the Respondent provides no evidence or submissions that would support the redaction of their registrant details in this case. The mere existence of privacy laws does not constitute an exceptional case such that it would be appropriate apply the exception to the requirement in Policy ¶ 4(j) that the decision be published in full over the Internet.

 

In light of the above, the Panel declines to redact the listed Respondent's name from the decision.

 

CONSENT TO TRANSFER

Respondent's September 17, 2025 e-mail (referred to above) also stated in pertinent part: "I do not contest the complaint and am willing to voluntarily transfer the domain name to the Complainant to resolve the matter. Please advise on the next steps to facilitate this transfer." This offer to transfer was made, without compensation, as a resolution to the proceeding. 

 

In a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the Domain Name, but instead agrees to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant, the Panel is authorized to forego the traditional UDRP analysis. This Panel, in recognition of the common request of the parties, in the interests of judicial expedience, and in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, has so decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to order an immediate transfer of the <barclaycard-us.com> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (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 (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 (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

As the remedy of the Complainant and the request of the Respondent both sought to transfer the Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant, the Panel concludes that such relief shall be GRANTED.

 

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

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: October 7, 2025