Westmore · UDRP decision
WIPO · Case No. D2014-1664

Anadako.com

TransferWIPO-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered transfer of <anadako.com> after the Respondent filed a late Response expressly consenting to the requested transfer. Relying on prior UDRP decisions concerning genuine unilateral consent, the Panel proceeded without reviewing or making findings on the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2014-11-07
Panelist(s)
Innes, James McNeish
Complainant
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Respondent
Admin Contacter,Sol Invictus Comiti LP /Domains By Proxy, LLC
Disputed domain(s)
anadako.com
Citation weightrelies on 2 authorities
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind anadako.com

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

Reconstructing the record for anadako.com…
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of anadako.com.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

This decision illustrates a consent-to-transfer disposition in which a panel granted the requested remedy without adjudicating any of the three substantive UDRP elements. Its value is principally procedural: it shows that an out-of-time Response consenting to transfer may permit an immediate order while avoiding findings of fact or liability.

The three-part test
Identical or confusingly similarnot_reached
Rights or legitimate interestsnot_reached
Registered and used in bad faithnot_reached

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
2014-11-07
Panel
Innes, James McNeish
Full decision
4 min read · hosted by Westmore

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Anadarko Petroleum Corporation v. Admin Contacter, Sol Invictus Comiti LP / Domains By Proxy, LLC Case No. D2014-1664 1. The Parties The Complainant is Anadarko Petroleum Corporation of the Woodlands, Texas, United States of America ("US"), represented by Adams and Reese LLP, US. The Respondent is Admin Contacter, Sol Invictus Comiti LP of "Pfaffikon City", Switzerland / Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, US, represented by Willenken Wilson Loh & Delgado, LLP of US. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <anadako.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 24, 2014. On September 25, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 25, 2014, 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 September 26, 2014 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 September 26, 2014. The Center verified that 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 October 1, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 21, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response by then. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 22, 2014. The Center appointed James McNeish Innes as the sole panelist in this matter on October 31, 2014. 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. The Respondent thereafter filed a Response out of time on November 3, 2014 indicating its consent to the relief requested by the Complainant. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is located in the Woodlands, Texas. It owns 21 valid and subsisting US Trademark Registrations embodying the ANADARKO and ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION marks (collectively the "Trademarks"). It has used the Trademarks in commerce continually since 1985 to advertise, market, distribute and sell goods in diverse fields ranging from oil and gas exploration, drilling and production to building construction and other commercial activity. It has since 1985 spent millions of dollars advertising, marketing, and promoting the ANADARKO brand under the Trademarks in the US and throughout the world in a wide variety of media formats. It has owned and operated an Internet website under the domain name <anadarko.com> since 1994. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <anadako.com> on September 19, 2014. 5. Discussion The Complainant has requested that the Panel issue a decision ordering that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. By its Response served on November 3, 2014 the Respondent asks that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant without further findings of fact or liability including those related to the elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. A number of previous UDRP decisions support the view that a panel may in these circumstances order the transfer of a disputed domain name without the necessary review as to facts and without making findings on the merits of the matter under the Policy. The Respondent cited the following passage from the Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan , WIPO Case No. D2005-1132 in support of its request: "This Panel considers that a genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. Where the Complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, then pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer. This is clearly the most expeditious course (see Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207 )." I accept this and will proceed on the same basis as above for the same reasons. 6. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <anadako.com> be transferred to the Complainant. James McNeish Innes Sole Panelist Date: November 7, 2014

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

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around anadako.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
115,948 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, backed by WHOIS, UDRP and domain-sales intelligence.

or
Buyer-side only Escrow-protected NDA on request
Services
Research
UDRP
Westmore
Support

Copyright © 2026 Westmore. All rights reserved.

Essential cookies only. Nothing is sold or shared.