Are-law.com

The timeline behind are-law.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 Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP v. m setiadi Claim Number: FA1210001466754 PARTIES Complainant is Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Chester Rothstein of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein, New York, USA. Respondent is m setiadi (“Respondent”), Indonesia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <are-law.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, LLC. 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 October 10, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 10, 2012. On October 11, 2012, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <are-law.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On October 17, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 6, 2012 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@are-law.com. Also on October 17, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 20, 2012, 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. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <are-law.com> domain name, the domain name at issue, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ARE LAW mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. 3. Respondent registered and used the domain name at issue in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, he did send email to the Forum stating that he had deleted his website. FINDINGS Respondent did not file a Response but has indicated by email that the website associated with the domain name at issue has been deleted. The Panel finds this to constitute a consent to transfer the <are-law.com> domain name to Complainant. In a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel will forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the domain name 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 <are-law.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist Dated: December 2, 2012 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.