Westmore · UDRP DecisionPedeggespanol.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <pedeggespanol.com> based on Respondent’s stipulation to a voluntary transfer. It expressly declined to make findings of fact or determine compliance with the UDRP elements.
The timeline behind pedeggespanol.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 pedeggespanol.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The Panel did not decide registration or use in bad faith because Respondent consented to transfer and the Panel made no factual findings.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION International Edge, Inc. v. Oversee Research and Development LLC Claim Number: FA0802001144130 PARTIES Complainant is International Edge, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Peter D. Murray, of Cooper & Dunham LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Oversee Research and Development, LLC (“Respondent”), represented by William A. Delgado, of Willenken Wilson Loh & Lieb LLP, California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <pedeggespanol.com>, registered with Nameking.com, 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. Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 12, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 14, 2008. On February 13, 2008, Nameking.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <pedeggespanol.com> domain name is registered with Nameking.com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 February 15, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 6, 2008 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@pedeggespanol.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 5, 2008. On March 21, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and is likely to cause confusion; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, and that the domain name at issue was registered in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent contends that it was not aware of Complainant at the time the domain name at issue was registered. Respondent stipulates that it is willing to voluntarily transfer the domain name at issue to the Complainant. FINDINGS The Panel will not make any findings of fact as Complainant has requested the domain name at issue be transferred to them and Respondent stipulates that it is willing to voluntarily transfer the domain name at issue to Complainant. 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.” As Respondent does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the domain name at issue, and has consented to judgment in favor of Complainant. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (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., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“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.”) DECISION Respondent has stipulated that the domain name <pedeggespanol.com> be transferred to Complainant. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <pedeggespanol.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist Dated: March 28, 2008 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.
What Westmore sees around pedeggespanol.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
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.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on FORUM-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.