National Arbitration Forum




Sasol Limited v. Texas International Property Assoicates- NA NA

Claim Number: FA0808001220064



Complainant is Sasol Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Daniel Greenberg, of Greenberg Attorneys, Johannesburg, South Africa.  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.


James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 12, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 15, 2008.


On August 21, 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 August 21, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September 10, 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 September 10, 2008.


Complainant submitted an Additional Submission on September 16, 2008 that was determined to be deficient pursuant to Supplemental Rule 7 because it was received after the deadline for submissions. 


On September 19, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.



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



A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:


1.      Respondent’s <> domain name at issue is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SASOL mark.


2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <> domain name.


3.      Respondent registered and used the domain name at issue in bad faith.


            B.  Respondent filed a Response consenting to transfer of the domain name at issue to the Complainant.


            C. Additional Submissions were received from each party but were not considered.  The Panel  determined not to consider Complainant’s Additional Submission because it was not timely filed or the Additional Submission of Respondent which merely replied to it.  See, e.g., SuNyx Surface Nanotechnologies GmbH v. Primmer, D2002-0968 (WIPO Jan. 20, 2003) (choosing not to consider either the complainant’s or the respondent’s additional submissions that were received after the stated deadline where neither set out any new facts or other circumstances that would justify the late submission).



Complainant is an international petroleum, chemical, mining and technology company that conducts business in over 149 countries worldwide, specializing in the manufacture and supply of chemicals, fuels and oils. Complainant’s head office is situated in Johannesburg, Rosebank, South Africa.  Complainant was formed in South Africa on 26 September 1950 originally under the name South African Coal, Oil and Gas Corporation Limited, later adopting the invented acronym SASOL.  Complainant has registered the SASOL mark as UK trademark 746,664 issued 5 October 1955 for the word mark SASOL in class 4 “All goods listed in class 4.”  Complainant also holds registrations for the SASOL trademark in numerous other countries worldwide.


The relevant part of the domain name at issue is WWWSASOL. The prefix of the Domain “WWW” is the well known acronym for the “World Wide Web,” and is an extremely common prefix (when succeeded by a period / full stop) to a domain name in a URL, for a webpage, on the Internet. The letters “WWW” therefore have no distinguishing capacity in the context of domain names.  Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the SASOL mark for any purpose or to register the domain name <>.


Respondent filed a Response which consents to the transfer of the domain name at issue from Respondent to 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.”


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.


Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer

            Respondent consents to transfer the <> domain name to Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel decides to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an 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 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.”).



The Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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




James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: October 3, 2008




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum