National Arbitration Forum




Cengage Learning Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates - NA NA

Claim Number: FA0802001144008



Complainant is Cengage Learning Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Alexandre A. Montagu, New York, USA.  Respondent is Texas International Property Associates - NA NA (“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 he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.


Mr. P-E H Petter Rindforth as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 12, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 13, 2008.


On February 14, 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 20, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 11, 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 11, 2008.


On March 17, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Mr. P-E H Petter Rindforth as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant


Complainant states that its CHILTON trademarks are, by reason of extensive use and advertising, famous in the publishing industry.


Complainant further states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to CHILTON, as it fully incorporates the said trademark, with the generic addition “diy” (“do-it-yourself”). This generic term corresponds to the goods and services offered under Complainant’s trademark. Complainant also claims common law trademark rights to CHILTON DIY, extensively used in commerce in connection with Complainant’s "do-it-yourself” goods and services.


Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to <>, as Respondent is not commonly known by this domain name, has no permission from Complainant to use CHILTON as part of a domain name and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.


Finally, Complainant concludes that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith by Respondent.  According to Complainant, Respondent is a well-known cybersquatter, named as Respondent in 57 separate UDRP disputes before the National Arbitration Forum since February 2007 (a list of these disputes provided as exhibit L of the Complaint).  Respondent operates a website from <>, offering sponsored links to third party websites which offer goods and services that are directly competitive to those of Complainant (Exhibit H of the Complaint).


Complainant informs that a warning and demand letter was sent to Respondent on September 5, 2007, stating that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name infringed Complainant’s legal rights.  Since no response was received from Respondent, a second demand letter was sent on October 18, 2007.  On October 22, 2007, Respondent replied via e-mail, stating that the demand letter had been forwarded to a legal representative, and that a response would be issued within 15 to 21 days.  Complainant did, however, not receive any such response.


B. Respondent


          Respondent refers to the communication of October 22, 2007 between the Parties and informs that Respondent’s counsel recommended transfer of the disputed domain name.  Due to a change in staff, this was not communicated to Complainant.  The counsel for Respondent contacted the counsel for Complainant prior to filing the Response to attempt suspend the instant proceeding to effectuate the transfer of the disputed domain name but received no reply. 


          Respondent agrees to the relief requested by Complainant but states that this is not an admission to the three elements of 4(a) of the policy but rather an offer of “unilateral consent to transfer”




Complainant is a provider of automotive reference materials, including those which provide “do-it-yourself” advice.  Chilton Publishing Company was founded in 1922.  Complainant acquired the Chilton automotive assets in 2003, including the CHILTON trademarks.  Complainant is the owner of the following U.S. trademark registrations (Exhibit D of the Complaint):


No. 2,559,631 CHILTON (Intl Class 39)

No. 2,840,037 CHILTON’S (Intl Class 37)

No. 2,775,995 CHILTON’S ONLINE (Intl Class 39)

No. 2,713,595 CHILTON (Intl Class 9)

No. 2,585,983 CHILTON (Intl Class 16)

No. 2,605,298 CHILTON’S (Intl Class 16)


Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 2, 2005.


According to Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “a Panel shall 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.”


In this case, Respondent does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.  In fact, Respondent requests that the Panel order the transfer.


Therefore, under these special circumstances, this Panel decides to forego the traditional UDRP analysis, not to make any further findings or discussion, and order the immediate transfer of the disputed 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.”).




Giving the special circumstances in this case, the fact that Respondent has consented to the transfer of the domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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




Mr P-E H Petter Rindforth, Panelist
Dated: March 31, 2008





Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum