National Arbitration Forum




Kelly Properties, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates-NA NA

Claim Number: FA0807001214416



Complainant is Kelly Properties, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Elizabeth K. Brock, of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C., Michigan, 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 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.


Luiz Edgard Montaury Pimenta as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 9, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 10, 2008.


On July 10, 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 July 14, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 4, 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 August 4, 2008.


On August 8, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Mr. Luiz Edgard Montaury Pimenta as Panelist.



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




A. Complainant


Complainant contends that:


1. Respondent’s <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KELLY SERVICES mark.


2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <> domain name, because no bona fide offering of goods or services is made; Respondent is not known by the domain name; and no legitimate or fair use of the domain name is made.


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



B. Respondent


Respondent contends that:


1. Complainant had never contacted Respondent to complain about the disputed domain name prior to the institution of this proceeding;


2. Had Complainant done so, Respondent would have agreed to transfer the disputed domain;


3. Therefore, Respondent agrees to the relief requested by the Complainant.




Complainant, Kelly Properties, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kelly Services, Inc., which operates as a personnel services company in 30 countries and territories.  Complainant furnishes a variety of workers for businesses, including full-time, part-time, skilled, and unskilled employees.  Since at least 1965, Complainant has operated under the KELLY SERVICES mark (Reg. No. 834,892 issued September 5, 1967), which was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).  Complainant also owns and operates the <> domain name in conjunction with its provision of online employment databases.


Respondent registered the <> domain name on December 10, 2004.  Respondent is currently using the disputed domain name to host a website that predominantly features third-party links to employment service businesses that operate in direct competition with Complainant.



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.”


In this case, both parties have requested that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.  As a result, the Panel decides that, as Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead has agreed to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, the Panel decides to forego the traditional UDRP analysis 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.”).



For the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that relief requested by both parties shall be GRANTED.


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




Luiz Edgard Montaury Pimenta, Panelist
Dated: August 22, 2008





Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page