National Arbitration Forum




Solstice Marketing Corporation v. Texas International Property Associates

Claim Number: FA0710001104317



Complainant is Solstice Marketing Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel E. Branson, of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600, Philadelphia, PA 19103-7213.  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 has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.


Professor Darryl C. Wilson as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 30, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 31, 2007.


On October 30, 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 November 14, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of December 4, 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 December 4, 2007.


On December 13, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Professor Darryl C. Wilson as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant


The Complainant contends that it owns the registered service mark SOLSTICE and uses the mark SOLSTICE SUNGLASS BOUTIQUE on the website <>.  Complaint further contends that Respondent has registered an identical or confusingly similar domain name identified as <>.  Complaint 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


The Respondent does not contest the Complainant’s assertions and states that “Respondent agrees to the relief requested by the Complainant and will upon order of the Panel, do so.”  The Respondent asserts that it is not admitting that it has violated the elements of the ICANN UDRP policy but instead characterizes its actions as an offer of “unilateral consent to transfer.”




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.



The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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




Professor Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: December 27, 2007