Ultrapassworsd.com + 14 more domains

The timeline behind ultrapassworsd.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Cybertania, Inc v. WildSites.com LLC c/o Lou Kerner Claim Number: FA0705000993007 PARTIES Complainant is Cybertania, Inc (“Complainant”), represented by Leo Radvinsky, 2123 Warwick Lane, Glenview, IL 60026-5743. Respondent is WildSites.com llc c/o Lou Kerner (“Respondent”), represented by Paul Raynor Keating, Balmes 173 2/2, Barcelona 08006, Spain. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue (the “Disputed Domain Names”) are <ultrapassworsd.com>, <ultrapasslords.com>, <ultrapasswolds.com>, <ultrapaswards.com>, <ultrapaswordss.com>, <ultrapoassword.com>, <freepaysite.net>, <myfreepaylist.com>, <myfreepayset.com>, <my-freepaysite.com>, <myfreepaysat.com>, and <freepaymysite.com>, registered with Nameking.com, Inc., and <freepaysit.com>, <myfreepaysipe.com>, and <myfreepaysiste.com>, registered with Enom, 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. Michael A. Albert as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 25, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 25, 2007. On May 25, 2007, Nameking.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ultrapassworsd.com>, <ultrapasslords.com>, <ultrapasswolds.com>, <ultrapaswards.com>, <ultrapaswordss.com>, <ultrapoassword.com>, <freepaysite.net>, <myfreepaylist.com>, <myfreepayset.com>, <my-freepaysite.com>, <myfreepaysat.com>, and <freepaymysite.com> domain names are registered with Nameking.com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Nameking.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nameking.com, 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 May 25, 2007, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <freepaysit.com>, <myfreepaysipe.com>, and <myfreepaysiste.com> domain names are registered with Enom, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 May 31, 2007, an Order to stay the administrative proceeding was requested by both parties, and approved by the National Arbitration Forum. On July 13, 2007, a request to lift the stay was requested, and subsequently granted by the National Arbitration Forum. On July 19, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 8, 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 to postmaster@ultrapassworsd.com, postmaster@ultrapasslords.com, postmaster@ultrapasswolds.com, postmaster@ultrapaswards.com, postmaster@ultrapaswordss.com, postmaster@ultrapoassword.com, postmaster@freepaysite.net, postmaster@myfreepaylist.com, postmaster@myfreepayset.com, postmaster@my-freepaysite.com, postmaster@myfreepaysat.com, postmaster@freepaymysite.com, postmaster@freepaysit.com, postmaster@myfreepaysipe.com, and postmaster@myfreepaysiste.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 1, 2007. On August 3, 2007, the National Arbitration Forum received a timely Additional Submission from Complainant in accordance with Supplemental Rule 7. On August 8, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Michael A. Albert as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, Cybertania, Inc (“Cybertania”), represented by Mr. Leo Radvinsky, contends that: - Complainant owns and operates two well-known adult entertainment websites, <ultrapasswords.com> and <myfreepaysite.com>, which, according to web traffic statistics, rank among the most popular adult websites in the world. - Complainant holds valid United States trademark registrations for the marks ULTRAPASSWORDS.COM, ULTRAXXXPASSWORDS.COM, and MYFREEPAYSITE.COM. Complainant has appended to its Complaint evidence of its registrations. - The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. Each of the Disputed Domain Names “incorporates the entire mark with a slight deviation” and each is “readily recognizable as a misspelling of Complainant’s marks.” - Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent’s “sole use of the Disputed Domain Names is to divert and confuse customers searching for Complainant’s marks.” Respondent “obscures its association with the Disputed Domain Names” by “redirecting Internet users to advertising for other websites with different domain names.” - Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent is “intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain by creating confusion based on common misspellings of Complainant’s marks.” Respondent’s “pattern of conduct” in registering at least 15 domain names, “each one meant to divert a greater number of customers seeking the Complainant’s marks” is further proof that the Disputed Domain Names were registered in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent, Wildsites.com LLC, c/o Lou Kerner (“Wildsites”) contends that: - Complainant and Respondent reached a legally binding Settlement agreement. The Settlement Agreement requires Respondent to transfer the Disputed Domain Names to Complainant only after the Complainant’s dismissal of the Complaint. - After the Settlement Agreement had been signed, Respondent questioned Mr. Radvinsky’s “authority to sign the document on behalf of the Complainant” because although Mr. Radvinsky had claimed to be the president of Cybertania, the Secretary of State of Illinois did not list him as a person with authority to act on Cybertania’s behalf. - Mr. Radvinsky claimed his mother was mistakenly registered as the president of Cybertania, but he failed to have her sign the Agreement or to provide documentation establishing this fact. - Further attempts to confirm Mr. Radvinsky’s authority also failed. - Respondent did not immediately receive an email apparently sent by Mr. Radvinsky confirming that he had succeeded in changing the Secretary of State’s records to list him as president of Cybertania because the message was “caught in a spam filter.” - After confirming that Mr. Radvinsky’s identity with the Secretary of State’s amended records, Respondent awaited a transfer request from the Complainant but never received one. - “Respondent stipulates that it desires that the domain names be transferred to the Complainant.” - Respondent requests that the Complaint be dismissed in order to enforce the Settlement Agreement and transfer the Disputed Domain Names. In the alternative, the Respondent requests that the Panel order the transfer of the Disputed Domain Names pursuant to Respondent’s stipulation, “without further findings of fact.” C. Additional Submissions In an August 3, 2007 submission the Complainant further asserts: - Respondent had agreed to transfer the Disputed Domain Names during the stay, and that the Complaint would be withdrawn only after the transfer went through. - After a series of good faith attempts to prove his identity, Mr. Radvinsky amended the Secretary of State of Illinois records to list him as president and informed Respondent of this change. Further attempts to contact Respondent were unsuccessful. - The Settlement Agreement is void because Respondent failed to transfer the domains in question within 3 business days as required. - Respondent had every opportunity to transfer the domains during the stay, but failed to do so or to provide Complainant with the authorization codes. - So long as the resulting transfer order is binding, “Complainant does not oppose [Respondent’s] request to issue such a decision without findings of fact.” FINDINGS The panel will not make any findings of fact, for the reasons explained below. DISCUSSION Though there is some disagreement and confusion as to why the parties were not able to transfer the Disputed Domain Names after signing a Settlement Agreement, both parties have ultimately asked the Panel to simply transfer the domain names to the Complainant, without findings of fact. The Rules do not expressly address how a Panel is to handle a situation in which the parties seek the same outcome and request a transfer without factual findings. Rule 15(a) does, however, allow the Panel to consider “any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” An overwhelming majority of panels that have considered this issue appear to have resolved it in favor of complying with the parties’ joint proposal. This Panel agrees. Given that the parties are requesting the same result, the Panel need not make additional findings of fact in this case. Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“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 Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration without additional findings of fact where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (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.”). Moreover, the Panel notes that in cases where the parties make the same request “it would be unwise to make any other findings in case the same issues were to arise in later proceedings.” Kohler Co. v. Wesley Atkins a/k/a Default Profile a/k/a N/A:2c67phrv, FA 760086 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2006). Accordingly, the Panel does not make any findings of fact, and instead orders the transfer of the Disputed Domain Names to Complainant. DECISION Pursuant to the common request of the parties, it is Ordered that the <ultrapassworsd.com>, <ultrapasslords.com>, <ultrapasswolds.com>, <ultrapaswards.com>, <ultrapaswordss.com>, <ultrapoassword.com>, <freepaysite.net>, <myfreepaylist.com>, <myfreepayset.com>, <my-freepaysite.com>, <myfreepaysat.com>, <freepaymysite.com>, <freepaysit.com>, <myfreepaysipe.com>, and <myfreepaysiste.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent WildSites.com LLC c/o Lou Kerner to Complainant Cybertania, Inc. Michael A. Albert, Panelist Dated: August 24, 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.