National Arbitration Forum




Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Texas International Property Associates

Claim Number: FA0710001100700



Complainant is Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company (“Complainant”), represented by Robert Schultz, of Schultz & Little, L.L.P., 640 Cepi Drive, Suite A, Chesterfield, MO 63005-1221.  Respondent is Texas International Property Associates (“Respondent”), represented by Gary Wayne Tucker, of Law Office of Gary Wayne Tucker, PO 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.


Flip Petillion as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 23, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 26, 2007.


On October 26, 2007, the parties jointly requested that the instant proceedings be stayed.  The Forum subsequently granted the request.


On December 10, 2007, Complainant requested that the stay be lifted and the Forum granted this request.


On December 11, 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 December 18, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 7, 2008 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 January 7, 2008.


On January 14, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Flip Petillion as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

1. The <> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.


2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the <> domain name.


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


B. Respondent

Respondent is prepared to transfer the domain name.



            Complainant holds a series of trade mark registrations.


Complainant has registered its trade marks in connection with car and other vehicle rental, leasing and sales services, and those trade marks have been used in those businesses since 1985.


Respondent registered the domain name <>.




Respondent does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the <> domain name.  Rather, Respondent has consented to judgment in favor of Complainant and authorized the immediate transfer of the subject domain name. 


The Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel may decide to 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.”).


Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name can be transferred to the Complainant without determination of any other element.




Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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




Flip Petillion, Panelist
Dated: January 28, 2008







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum