National Arbitration Forum




Google Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates- NA NA

Claim Number: FA0810001230808



Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Meredith M. Pavia, of Fenwick & West LLP, California, 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.


Beatrice Onica Jarka as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 23, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 24, 2008.


On October 28, 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 November 5, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of November 25, 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 November 25, 2008.



On December 5, 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:

·        The disputed domain name is nearly identical or confusingly similar with its famous GOOGLE mark;

·        The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the Complainant has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to use the disputed domain name and the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name;

·        The disputed domain name is inactive and such inactivity does not support any findings of  rights or legitimate interests;

·        The disputed domain name was registered and it is used in bad faith, considering the fame and unique qualities of the GOOGLE mark.


B. Respondent

         By the Response, the Respondent 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 consents to transfer the <> domain name to Complainant.  As a result, the Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, 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 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.”).



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




Beatrice Onica Jarka, Panelist
Dated: December 19, 2008







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum