Quantumrewards.com

The timeline behind quantumrewards.com

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

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Quantum Loyalty Systems, Inc. v. Quantum Loyalty Systems, Inc. Claim Number: FA0610000810228 PARTIES Complainant is Quantum Loyalty Systems, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Lawrence J. Siskind, of Harvey Siskind LLP, Four Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111. Respondent is Quantum Loyalty Systems, Inc. (“Respondent”), represented by Lawrence J. Siskind, of Harvey Siskind LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor, San Francisco, CA 415-354-0110. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <quantumrewards.com>, registered with Nameview, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 29, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 2, 2006. On October 6, 2006, Nameview, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <quantumrewards.com> domain name is registered with Nameview, Inc. and that the Respondent is the 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 October 16, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of November 6, 2006 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@quantumrewards.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 3, 2006. On November 8, 2006, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant offers fully customizable reward currency for increased customer loyalty and sales incentives. Complainant uses certain marks to forward its customer loyalty programs. These include QUANTUM LOYALTY SYSTEMS, QUANTUM REWARDS and QUANTUM REWARDSCARD. These marks were registered in 2001. In 2005, Respondent registered <quantumrewards.com> which is a domain name that is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks and domain names, and which promotes identical loyalty and rewards programs, including those offered by Complainant’s business partners and competitors. Its adoption is a clear effort at “cyber-squatting,” i.e., purchasing a domain name that is a variation on a popular trademark with the expectation that the site will divert traffic from the original site through the use of that mark in the domain name. Respondent reserved the domain name <quantumrewards.com> on May 31, 2005. Respondent has no legitimate rights in the domain name. Further, Respondent was likely aware of Complainant’s rights in the QUANTUM marks and domain names when it reserved the domain name. Respondent itself does not offer any goods or services. Instead, It offers links to many services competitive with Complainant. Following Complainant’s filing of its Complaint, Nameview, the Registrar of the disputed domain name, caused to be changed or acted in concert with the party that caused to be changed the WHOIS records for the disputed domain name to reflect the Complainant as the Registrant. Although the Complainant and Respondent are both nominally the same entity, Quantum Loyalty Systems, Inc. is the Respondent only by name and does not have access to or control of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent Complainant initially filed its Complainant against Domain Administrator c/o Nameview, Inc. Based upon the WHOIS records, Complainant was required to amend its Complaint to show itself as Respondent in the case, so that both Complainant and Respondent are the same party. Respondent concurs with all allegations contained in its Complaint. FINDINGS 1. Since Complainant and Respondent are the same party, and both request the transfer of the domain name <quantumrewards.com> Complainant, the Panel has no choice but to order the transfer. 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.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Because of the unusual circumstances of this case, it is not necessary to make the typical analysis of the three issues stated above, to reach the correct disposition of the case. Complainant filed its Complainant against a Respondent who had registered the disputed domain name on May 31, 2005. That Respondent, according to Complainant, offered no goods or services. Instead, it offered links to many services competitive with Complainant. Complainant filed its domain name dispute first against Domain Administrator c/o Nameview, Inc. Following Complainant’s filing of its Complaint, Nameview, the Registrar of the disputed domain name, caused to be changed the WHOIS records for the disputed domain name to show Complainant as owner of the disputed domain name. This required Complainant to file the Response as the Respondent. This was required because Complainant, even though shown as owner of the disputed domain name, has no access to or control of the disputed domain name and thus must proceed this case to conclusion. The unique result of this process is that Quantum Loyalty Systems, Inc. is both Complainant and Respondent. Both Complainant and Respondent request that the domain name <quantumrewards.com> be transferred to Complainant. Previous panels have found that where a Respondent agrees to the transfer of a disputed domain name, the disputed domain name may be transferred immediately, and that a full analysis of the Policy is unnecessary. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd-Cayman Web Dev, FA133625 (Nat. Arb. 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., FA212653 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (stating that, “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, FA475191 (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.”). The inference is made that the original Registrant, and the party against whom Complainant sought to file against as Respondent, changed the registration information to list Complainant as the owner of the <quantumrewards.com> domain name. This amounts to an agreement to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant. See Norgren, Inc. v. Norgen, Inc., c/o Domain Adm’r, FA670051 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2006) (granting transfer under similar circumstances). DECISION Having established a proper case for transfer as required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <quantumrewards.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist Dated: November 21, 2006 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

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