Prohoist.com

The timeline behind prohoist.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 American Hunter, Inc. v. Demand Domains, Inc. Claim Number: FA0804001177285 PARTIES Complainant is American Hunter, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by J. Wiley Horton, of Pennington Law Firm, Florida, USA. Respondent is Demand Domains, Inc. (“Respondent”), represented by Christina G. Radocha, Washington, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <prohoist.com>, registered with Enom Corporate Inc. 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. David S. Safran, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 10, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 14, 2008. On April 10, 2008, Enom Corporate Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <prohoist.com> domain name is registered with Enom Corporate Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom Corporate Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom Corporate 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 April 22, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 12, 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@prohoist.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 12, 2008. On May 15, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David S. Safran, as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. FINDINGS Consent to Transfer the Subject Domain Name Respondent maintains that it “assumed registration” of the disputed domain name in good faith., and Respondent states that, upon learning of Complainant’s rights in the PROHOISTS mark, it contacted Complainant and offered to transfer the <prohoist.com> domain name. Respondent maintains that it wishes to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, and thus, has consented to judgment in favor of Complainant and authorized the immediate transfer of the subject domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that, in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, it may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name. 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.”); 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.”). DECISION Since both parties have asked for transfer of the domain name, it is Ordered that the <prohoist.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David S. Safran, Panelist Dated: May 28, 2008 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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