Westmore · UDRP DecisionAllscriptsmisys.com + 19 more domains
The Panel ordered all twenty disputed domain names transferred after Respondent consented to transfer. The Panel expressly found trademark rights and confusing similarity for seventeen domains, but omitted the three ALLSCRIPTSHEALTHCARE domains from that finding. It then declined the traditional UDRP analysis because of consent, making no substantive findings on rights or legitimate interests or bad-faith registration and use.
The timeline behind allscriptsmisys.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 allscriptsmisys.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The Panel made no affirmative substantive finding that any domain was registered and used in bad faith. It forgone the traditional UDRP analysis and ordered transfer based on Respondent's consent.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc. and Allscripts, LLC and Misys Healthcare Systems, LLC v. Lee Woods Claim Number: FA0902001249686 PARTIES Complainant is Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc. and Allscripts, LLC and Misys Healthcare Systems, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jeffrey J. McMahan, of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Vermont, USA. Respondent is Lee Woods (“Respondent”), Florida, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <allscriptsmisys.com>, <misysallscripts.com>, <allscripts-misys.com>, <misys-allscripts.com>, <allscriptsmysis.com>, <allscriptsmisys.net>, <allscriptsmysis.net>, <allscriptsmisys.org>, <allscriptsmysis.org>, <mysisallscripts.com>, <misysallscripts.net>, <mysisallscripts.net>, <misysallscripts.org>, <mysisallscripts.org>, <allscripts-misys.net>, <allscripts-misys.org>, <allscriptshealthcare.com>, <allscriptshealthcare.net>, <allscriptshealthcare.org>, and <allscriptsmisyshealthcare.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, 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. James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 25, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 26, 2009. On February 26, 2009, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <allscriptsmisys.com>, <misysallscripts.com>, <allscripts-misys.com>, <misys-allscripts.com>, <allscriptsmysis.com>, <allscriptsmisys.net>, <allscriptsmysis.net>, <allscriptsmisys.org>, <allscriptsmysis.org>, <mysisallscripts.com>, <misysallscripts.net>, <mysisallscripts.net>, <misysallscripts.org>, <mysisallscripts.org>, <allscripts-misys.net>, <allscripts-misys.org>, <allscriptshealthcare.com>, <allscriptshealthcare.net>, <allscriptshealthcare.org>, and <allscriptsmisyshealthcare.com> domain names are registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.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 March 5, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 25, 2009 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@allscriptsmisys.com, postmaster@misysallscripts.com, postmaster@allscripts-misys.com, postmaster@misys-allscripts.com, postmaster@allscriptsmysis.com, postmaster@allscriptsmisys.net, postmaster@allscriptsmysis.net, postmaster@allscriptsmisys.org, postmaster@allscriptsmysis.org, postmaster@mysisallscripts.com, postmaster@misysallscripts.net, postmaster@mysisallscripts.net, postmaster@misysallscripts.org, postmaster@mysisallscripts.org, postmaster@allscripts-misys.net, postmaster@allscripts-misys.org, postmaster@allscriptshealthcare.com, postmaster@allscriptshealthcare.net, postmaster@allscriptshealthcare.org, and postmaster@allscriptsmisyshealthcare.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 24, 2009. Complainant filed an Additional Submission which was taken into consideration by the Panel. On March 27, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <allscriptsmisys.com>, <misysallscripts.com>, <allscripts-misys.com>, <misys-allscripts.com>, <allscriptsmysis.com>, <allscriptsmisys.net>, <allscriptsmysis.net>, <allscriptsmisys.org>, <allscriptsmysis.org>, <mysisallscripts.com>, <misysallscripts.net>, <mysisallscripts.net>, <misysallscripts.org>, <mysisallscripts.org>, <allscripts-misys.net>, <allscripts-misys.org>, <allscriptshealthcare.com>, <allscriptshealthcare.net>, <allscriptshealthcare.org>, and <allscriptsmisyshealthcare.com> domain names, the domain names at issue, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALL SCRIPTS and MISYS marks. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names at issue. 3. Respondent registered and used the domain names at issue in bad faith. B. Respondent makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent states that he no longer has any interest in the domain names at issue. C. Additional Submission: Complainant filed its Additional Submission noting that Respondent continues to have an interest in the domain names at issue and repeating its request that the Panel decide this matter in its favor. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the A ALLSCRIPTS mark (Reg. No. 3,287,641 issued September 4, 2007) and the MISYS mark (Reg. No. 3,177,341 issued November 28, 2006), which were registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Complainant has sufficient rights in the marks to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations); see also Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO). The <allscriptsmisys.com>, <misysallscripts.com>, <allscripts-misys.com>, <misys-allscripts.com>, <allscriptsmysis.com>, <allscriptsmisys.net>, <allscriptsmysis.net>, <allscriptsmisys.org>, <allscriptsmysis.org>, <mysisallscripts.com>, <misysallscripts.net>, <mysisallscripts.net>, <misysallscripts.org>, <mysisallscripts.org>, <allscripts-misys.net>, <allscripts-misys.org>, and <allscriptsmisyshealthcare.com> domain names at issue are confusingly similar to the A ALLSCRIPTS and MISYS marks. It is clear from the Response that Respondent no longer claims any interest in the domain names at issue and consents to their transfer 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.” 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. Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer Respondent consents to transfer the disputed domain names to Complainant. In a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain names but instead agrees to transfer the domain names in question to Complainant, the Panel will forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the disputed domain names. 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 Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <allscriptsmisys.com>, <misysallscripts.com>, <allscripts-misys.com>, <misys-allscripts.com>, <allscriptsmysis.com>, <allscriptsmisys.net>, <allscriptsmysis.net>, <allscriptsmisys.org>, <allscriptsmysis.org>, <mysisallscripts.com>, <misysallscripts.net>, <mysisallscripts.net>, <misysallscripts.org>, <mysisallscripts.org>, <allscripts-misys.net>, <allscripts-misys.org>, <allscriptshealthcare.com>, <allscriptshealthcare.net>, <allscriptshealthcare.org>, and <allscriptsmisyshealthcare.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist Dated: April 9, 2009 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 allscriptsmisys.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.