Westmore · UDRP DecisionAttbillpayment.com + 8 more domains
Respondent consented to transfer all nine disputed domain names. Because the registrar hold prevented a voluntary transfer during the proceeding, the Panel declined to conduct the traditional UDRP analysis and ordered all domains transferred to Complainant.
The timeline behind attbillpayment.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.
The Panel made no finding on bad-faith registration or use because it elected to forego the traditional UDRP analysis based on Respondent’s consent to transfer.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. v. H.W. Barnes Claim Number: FA0908001281920 PARTIES Complainant is AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Leanne Stendell, of Haynes and Boone, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is H.W. Barnes (“Respondent”), South Dakota, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <attbillpayment.com>, <attcingularwireless.com>, <bellsouthdslspeedtest.com>, <bellsouthresidential.com>, <bellsouthspeedtest.com>, <cingularcustomerservice.com>, <globalsbc.com>, <mysbcglobal.com>, and <sbcantispy.com>, registered with Moniker. 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 August 27, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 31, 2009. On August 28, 2009, Moniker confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <attbillpayment.com>, <attcingularwireless.com>, <bellsouthdslspeedtest.com>, <bellsouthresidential.com>, <bellsouthspeedtest.com>, <cingularcustomerservice.com>, <globalsbc.com>, <mysbcglobal.com>, and <sbcantispy.com> domain names are registered with Moniker and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker 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 September 1, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September 21, 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@attbillpayment.com, postmaster@attcingularwireless.com, postmaster@bellsouthdslspeedtest.com, postmaster@bellsouthresidential.com, postmaster@bellsouthspeedtest.com, postmaster@cingularcustomerservice.com, postmaster@globalsbc.com, postmaster@mysbcglobal.com, and postmaster@sbcantispy.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 21, 2009. On September 25, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, 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 <attbillpayment.com>, <attcingularwireless.com>, <bellsouthdslspeedtest.com>, <bellsouthresidential.com>, <bellsouthspeedtest.com>, <cingularcustomerservice.com>, <globalsbc.com>, <mysbcglobal.com>, and <sbcantispy.com> domain names, the domain names at issue, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ATT, CINGULAR, BELLSOUTH and SBC 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 filed a Response which consented to the transfer of the domain names at issue to the Complainant. FINDINGS Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer Respondent consents to transfer the <attbillpayment.com>, <attcingularwireless.com>, <bellsouthdslspeedtest.com>, <bellsouthresidential.com>, <bellsouthspeedtest.com>, <cingularcustomerservice.com>, <globalsbc.com>, <mysbcglobal.com>, and <sbcantispy.com> domain names to Complainant. However, after the initiation of this proceeding, Moniker placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain names while this proceeding is still pending. As a result, the Panel finds that, 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, it will forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of domain names at issue. 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 The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <attbillpayment.com>, <attcingularwireless.com>, <bellsouthdslspeedtest.com>, <bellsouthresidential.com>, <bellsouthspeedtest.com>, <cingularcustomerservice.com>, <globalsbc.com>, <mysbcglobal.com>, and <sbcantispy.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist Dated: October 6, 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 attbillpayment.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.