National Arbitration Forum




Guaranty Bank v. Texas International Property Associates

Claim Number: FA0708001059473



Complainant is Guaranty Bank (“Complainant”), represented by Sherri L. Eastley of Wong Cabello, LLP, PO Box 685108, Austin, TX, 78768-5108.  Respondent is Texas International Property Associates (“Respondent”), represented by Gary Wayne Tucker of the Law Office of Gary Wayne Tucker, PO Box 703431, Dallas, TX, 75370, USA.




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



The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.  Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically August 9, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint August 9, 2007.


On August 21, 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 verified that Respondent is bound by the Compana, LLC registration agreement and thereby has 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 23, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September 12, 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.


The Forum received a timely Response and determined it to be complete September 12, 2007.

No additional filings were made by the parties.


On September 25, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.



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



A.     Complainant makes the following allegations in this proceeding:


1.      Respondent filed a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known GUARANTY mark.

2.      Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name containing in its entirety Complainant’s mark.

3.      Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.


B.     Respondent makes the following points in response:


1.      Respondent urges that Complainant never raised the issue with Respondent prior to initiating this action.

2.      Respondent does not admit “to the three elements of 4(a) of the policy.”

3.      Respondent makes “an offer of ‘unilateral consent to transfer’” and “Respondent agrees to the relief requested by the Complainant and will, upon order of the Panel, do so.”



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 Complainant to 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)   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 Procedural Issue: Respondent Agrees to Transfer


Respondent agreed to a ‘unilateral transfer’ of the <> domain name registration from Respondent to Complainant in Respondent’s Response to the Complaint.  Respondent also asserted a willingness to forego further action. 


Respondent did not contest Complainant’s allegations regarding the disputed domain name, although Respondent noted that his consent to the transfer was not to be taken as an admission as to the required elements. 


Where Respondent agrees to a transfer and does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations by refuting them, the Panel may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name.  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.”). 



The Panel finds that Respondent agreed to the relief requested by Complainant.


Based on the above, the Panel foregoes traditional UDRP analysis and Orders the transfer.  See Royal Bank of Scot. Group plc v. rbspayments, FA 728805 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (transferring the <> domain name where the respondent agreed to the transfer and did not contest any of the complainant’s allegations). 




Having established an agreement to transfer, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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




Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: October 9, 2007.







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum