National Arbitration Forum




HCPRO Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates

Claim Number: FA0801001140938



Complainant is HCPRO Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Michael H. Bunis, of Fish & Richardson P.C., Massachussets, USA.  Respondent is Texas International Property Associates (“Respondent”), represented by Gary Wayne Tucker, of Law Office of Gary Wayne Tucker, Texas, USA.




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



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


Beatrice Onica Jarka as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 29, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 30, 2008.


On February 11, 2008, 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 February 12, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 3, 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 March 3, 2008.


On March 7, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Beatrice Onica Jarka as Panelist.



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



A.     Complainant


The Complainant contends that:

·        disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to the trademarks HCPRO and HCPRO’S HEALTHCARE MARKETPLACE in which Complainant has rights;

·        Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name because:  (i) Complainant has not authorized Respon­dent to use Complainant’s Marks; (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) whose name is “Texas International Property Associates”  has not been commonly known by the disputed Domain Name, even if Respondent has not acquired trademark or service mark rights; (iii), Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed Domain Name as this resolves to a commercial pay-per-click website from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees and some of the sites linked to the website at the disputed Domain Name are competitors of Complainant. 

·        Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed Domain Name should be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith because:  Respondent was on notice of Complainant’s rights in the registered trademark HCPRO and was also aware of Complainant’s trademark rights in HCPRO’S HEALTHCARE MARKETPLACE; because Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name for the purpose of diverting traffic from Complainant’s websites to Respondent’s website for Respondent’s commercial gain, thereby creating confusion and disrupting Complainant’s business; and) Respondent has been previously adjudicated to be a cybersquatter by previous UDRP Panels. 


B.     Respondent


By the Response submitted in these proceedings on March 3, 2008 the Respondent provides that it agrees to the relief requested by the Complainant and will, upon order of the Panel, do so. 



The Panel will not make any findings of fact, for the reasons explained below.



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. 


In this circumstance the Panel shall find it will 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.”).




Given the common request of the parties it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.




Beatrice Onica Jarka  Panelist
Dated: March 18, 2008





Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum