National Arbitration Forum




Howard and Morrissa Hamburger v. Texas International Property Associates- NA NA

Claim Number: FA0903001254954



Complainant is Howard and Morissa Hamburger (“Complainant”), represented by Charles J. Harder, of Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, California, USA.  Respondent is Texas International Property Associates- NA NA (“Respondent”), represented by JanPaul Guzman, of ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, Florida, 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 March 30, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 31, 2009.


On March 31, 2009, 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 April 8, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 28, 2009 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 April 28, 2009.



On May 8, 2009, 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 HALLOWEENSTREET 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.



Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer

            Respondent consents to transfer the <> domain name to   Complainant.  However, after the initiation of this proceeding, Compana LLC placed a     hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed      domain name while this proceeding is still pending.  As a result, 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 will             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 s       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: May 22, 2009







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum