Westmore · UDRP decision
WIPO · Case No. D2012-2474

Myaliiedbarton.com

TransferWIPO-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered transfer of <myaliiedbarton.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the registered ALLIEDBARTON mark because it added the common term “my” and replaced the second “l” with a visually similar “i.” The Complainant established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests. Bad faith was found from the Respondent’s pattern of targeting the Complainant and its revenue-generating pay-per-click use of the domain.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2013-01-24
Panelist(s)
Airaksinen, Tuukka
Complainant
AlliedBarton Security Services LLC
Respondent
ICS INC. / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Counsel
Cozen O’Connor
Disputed domain(s)
myaliiedbarton.com
Citation weightCited by 2 later decisions · relies on 4 authorities
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind myaliiedbarton.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Westmore reconstructs the full history behind myaliiedbarton.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:

Registration → decision → today timeline
Archived Wayback evidence of what the site showed
Registry bad-faith signals
The live current registrant
Available in UDRP Intelligence
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of myaliiedbarton.com.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

The case combines several recurring UDRP indicators: a visually deceptive one-letter substitution, imitation of the trademark owner’s existing “my” domain, monetized pay-per-click use, respondent default, and prior adverse cases involving the same parties. The decision is particularly useful as an example of how these facts can operate cumulatively across all three UDRP elements.

The three-part test
Identical or Confusingly SimilarMet
Rights or Legitimate InterestsMet
Registered and Used in Bad FaithMet

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Related decisions
Case details
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2013-01-24
Panel
Airaksinen, Tuukka
Full decision
6 min read · hosted by Westmore

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION AlliedBarton Security Services LLC v. ICS INC. / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. Case No. D2012-2474 1. The Parties The Complainant is AlliedBarton Security Services LLC of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, United States of America, represented by Cozen O'Connor, United States of America. The Respondent is ICS INC. / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; Bellevue, Washington, United States of America, respectively. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <myaliiedbarton.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center”) on December 17, 2012. On December 18, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On December 18, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 19, 2012 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 19, 2012. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 20, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 9, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 10, 2013. The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 18, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is the largest American-owned security officer services company, established in 1957. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for trademark comprising or consisting of the word “alliedbarton”. The Complainant has also registered and is using a website at <myalliedbarton.com>. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it has used the family of ALLIEDBARTON trademarks in commerce long before the Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 8, 2012 and that there can be little question that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with full knowledge of and the intent to trade off of the Complainant's pre-existing rights. The Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name incorporated the Complainant's ALLIEDBARTON trademarks, displaying all but one of the identical characters in the same chronological order. The Complainant states that it is not affiliated with the Respondent and that the Respondent has anonymously registered the Disputed Domain Name in an effort to evade consequences of registering a domain name for which it has not legitimate interests. The Respondent cannot claim to have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or a similar name. Concerning registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has recently been ordered to transfer three domain names to the Complainant, see AlliedBarton Security Services LLC v. ICS Inc ., WIPO Case No. D2012-0411 ; AlliedBarton Security Services LLC v. ICS Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2012-1003 . B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Disputed Domain Name consists of the Complainant's trademark ALLIEDBARTON, with the second "L" changed into an "I" and with adding the word "my" in front of the Disputed Domain Name. Replacing the letter "L" with the letter "I" is merely a typo (graphical error) and does not alter the overall impression of the mark ALLIEDBARTON. The word "my" is commonly used in the Internet to describe a service that can be tailored to meet the needs of a specific Internet user. Bearing also in mind that the Complainant is operating a website at <myalliedbarton.com>, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark ALLIEDBARTON. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names, once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of such rights or interests. See, e.g. , Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2000-0270 . There is no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent has any legitimate connection with the ALLIEDBARTON mark. The Complainant relies on the fact that there is no evidence that the Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name for anything but a pay-per-click (“PPC”) website, which in some instances advertised competing products. This effectively shifts the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate the presence of rights or legitimate interests, but did not do so. In the absence of an answer from the Respondent, the Complainant’s prima facie case has not been rebutted and the Complainant succeeds on the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. It is noted by the Panel that the Respondent has recently been ordered to transfer three other domain names to the Complainant. The Panel find that such conduct is in itself evidence that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent has clearly engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to cause confusion with the Complainant's trademarks and services. The Panel also notes that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a so called pay-per-click site, where links to third party websites are provided. This means that the Respondent is generating revenue with the Disputed Domain Name, which also has been established as evidence that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, see Asian World Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates , WIPO Case No. D2007-1415 . Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <myaliiedbarton.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Tuukka Airaksinen Sole Panelist Date: January 24, 2013

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around myaliiedbarton.com

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
115,898 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

The decision is only the beginning.

You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.

Confidential buyer-side representation for premium-domain acquisitions.

LinkedIn
Insights
Briefs
Who Owns
Westmore
Research
UDRP
Support
Buyer-side only· Escrow-protected· NDA on request

© 2026 Westmore. All rights reserved.

A note on privacy

Westmore uses a few essential cookies to keep this site secure and running smoothly. Nothing about your identity or interest is ever sold or shared.