National Arbitration Forum




The Antioch Company v. Texas International Property Associates

Claim Number: FA0707001042590



Complainant is The Antioch Company (“Complainant”), represented by Leslie Batté, of The Mihlbaugh Law Firm, LLP, P.O. Box 1141, Limo, OH 45802.  Respondent is Texas International Property Associates (“Respondent”), represented by Gary Wayne Tucker, of Law Office of Gary Wayne Tucker, P.O. Box 703431, Dallas, TX 75370.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with Compana, LLC.



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.


Dennis A. Foster as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 19, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 20, 2007.


On July 19, 2007, Compana, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with Compana, LLC and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Compana, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Compana, LLC 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 July 24, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 13, 2007 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 by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 13, 2007.


On August 17, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Dennis A. Foster as Panelist.



Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A. Complainant


- Complainant is a well-established and well-respected international business that has developed an excellent reputation based upon offering quality photograph preservation-related products and services.


- Complainant’s goods and services are offered to the public under valuable trade and service marks, including “CREATIVE MEMORIES,” which has been in use for nearly twenty years.


- Complainant owns valid United States Patent and Trademark Office registrations for its mark, “CREATIVE MEMORIES” (Registration No. 1,979,739; and Registration No. 2,099,073).


- Complainant has expended substantial sums and effort promoting its mark, resulting in the mark becoming a very strong, distinctive source identifier for the Complainant and the subject of substantial goodwill in the United States and around the world.


- The disputed domain name <> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid trademark.


- Respondent has no proprietary rights or legitimate interests in Complainant’s mark, has demonstrated no preparations to use the disputed domain name in a bona fide offering of goods or service, is not commonly known by that name and is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name without intent for commercial gain.


- Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to Respondent’s web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location.


B. Respondent


- Without admitting the validity of Complainant’s contentions, Respondent consents to the transfer to Complainant of the disputed domain name.





Both Complainant and Respondent are agreeable to the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.




Respondent consents to Complainant’s request that the domain name in question be transferred to Complainant.  Lacking evidence to suggest that Respondent’s consent is not genuine, the Panel finds that there is no dispute in this case to be resolved.  Thus, the Panel concludes that its proper role is to effect that consensual agreement between the parties, without engaging in an analysis of the pertinent elements and rendering findings otherwise necessary to direct such a transfer pursuant to the Policy and Rules.  For cases in support of the Panel’s conclusion, see The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, D2005-1132 (WIPO January 5, 2006) (“…a genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. Where the Complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, then pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer.”); Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Elmer Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“…under such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and fair to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”); Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Arb. Forum January 13, 2004); and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Modern Limited – Cayman Web Development, FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum January 9, 2003).




Having established that both parties desire a transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.




Dennis A. Foster, Panelist
Dated: August 31, 2007







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum