Holsted Marketing, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates

Claim Number: FA0708001058775



Complainant is Holsted Marketing, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Richard L. Santalesa, of Wiggin and Dana, LLP, P.O. Box 110325, 400 Atlantic Street, Stanford, CT 06911-0325. 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 or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.


            Darryl C. Wilson as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 7, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 7, 2007.


On August 10, 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 August 15, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September 4, 2006 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 September 4, 2007.


On September 11, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson as Panelist.



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



A.     Complainant


Complainant contends that it holds the U.S. Trademark registration for the mark HOLSTED JEWELERS.  Complainant also states that it holds the domain name registration for <> and that Respondent has registered an identical or confusingly similar domain name identified as <>.  Complainant further asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain and has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.


B.     Respondent


Respondent does not contest Complainant’s assertions and states that “Respondent agrees to the relief requested by the Complainant and will, upon order of the Panel, do so.”  Respondent asserts that it is not admitting that it has violated the elements of the ICANN UDRP policy but offers to transfer the name nonetheless.



Respondent has consented to judgment in favor of Complainant and agreed to the immediate transfer of the subject domain name upon order of the panel.  Where the respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the analysis of the UDRP elements is unnecessary. 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 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.”).


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.



Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

See FINDINGS section


Rights or Legitimate Interests

 See FINDINGS section


Registration and Use in Bad Faith

See FINDINGS section





Based on the concession and agreement of the Respondent the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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



Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist

Dated: September 25, 2007



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page