Whitneynabank.com

The timeline behind whitneynabank.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 Whitney National Bank v. Robert Dickson Claim Number: FA0703000944255 PARTIES Complainant is Whitney National Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Raymond G. Areaux, of Carver, Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux, LLC, 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2700, New Orleans, LA 70163. Respondent is Robert Dickson (“Respondent”), represented by Charles F. Hedges, 303 West Wall, Suite 1800, Midland, TX 79701. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <whitneynabank.com>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide. 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. Terry F. Peppard as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 20, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 23, 2007. On March 21, 2007, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <whitneynabank.com> domain name is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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 March 28, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 17, 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 by e-mail to postmaster@whitneynabank.com. A hard copy of the Response was received by the National Arbitration Forum on April 17, 2007. However, Respondent did not submit a copy of the Response electronically as required by Supplemental Rule 5(a). Therefore, the National Arbitration Forum considers the Response to be deficient. On April 23, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends, among other things, that: Complainant has used the WHITNEY and WHITNEY BANK trademarks and service marks continuously in commerce since its founding in 1883. Likewise Complainant has used the mark WHITNEY NATIONAL BANK continuously in commerce for more than ninety (90) years. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use any of its marks for any purpose. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent registered and uses the contested domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent contends, among other things, that: Respondent did not register the subject domain name, nor did he know that the domain name had been registered in its name. Respondent has never claimed any interest in the subject domain name. The subject domain name is the property of Complainant, and Respondent has no objection to the immediate transfer of the domain to Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain an order that a domain name be transferred: i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 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.” Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions. See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 24, 2005). DECISION The parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings. It is therefore Ordered that the <whitneynabank.com> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Terry F. Peppard, Panelist Dated: May 7, 2007 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.