National Arbitration Forum




Lucke Homes, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates- NA NA

Claim Number: FA0903001255184



Complainant is Lucke Homes, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kathryn E. Smith, of Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP, Ohio, USA.  Respondent is Texas International Property Associates- NA NA (“Respondent”), represented by JanPaul Guzman, of ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, Florida, USA.



The domain names at issue are <> and <>, 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.


Hector A. Manoff as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 31, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 1, 2009.


On April 1, 2009, Compana, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> and <> domain names are registered with Compana, Llc and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  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 7, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 27, 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 and by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 27, 2009.



On May 5, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hector A. Manoff as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

1. Complainant asserts its rights in the LUCKE HOMES and ROBERT LUCKE HOMES marks through their registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,467,713 issued July 15, 2008, and Reg. No. 3,457,925 issued July 1, 2008, respectively).

2. Complainant also asserts rights in the LUCKE HOMES and ROBERT LUCKE HOMES marks through their use since at least as early as 1980 and 1984, respectively, though they remark that they had been using the “Lucke” surname in the home building business since at least as early as 1953. 

3. Complainant asserts that the <> and <> domain names are identical to and fully incorporate the LUCKE HOMES and ROBERT LUCKE HOMES business names and U.S. registered service marks, respectively, despite the omission of spaces in the marks and addition of the generic top-level domain “.com.”

4. Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.

5. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites that display third-party click-through advertising for Complainant’s direct competitors and other third parties, which all generate significant revenue for Respondent. 

6. Complainant contends that Respondent has been the respondent in multiple other UDRP cases wherein the disputed domain names were transferred to the respective complainants in those cases, thus engaging in a pattern of bad faith registration and use.

7. Complainant also asserts that Respondent has disrupted Complainant’s business through the provision of competitive pay-per-click links on the resolving websites.

8. Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of an allegedly identical disputed domain names to commercially host advertisements for Complainant’s competitors has created a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship and affiliation with the disputed domain names and corresponding websites. 

9. Complainant also argues that Respondent had actual or constructive notice of Complainant and its rights in the marks at the time of the disputed domain names’ registrations. 


B. Respondent

Respondent agrees to the relief requested by Complainant.  It does not make any admission of the three elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy but offers a “unilateral consent to transfer.”




Respondent does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the <> and <> domain names.  Rather, Respondent has consented to a ruling in favor of Complainant and has authorized the immediate transfer of the domain names at issue.  In a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain names but instead agrees to transfer the domain names in question to Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the disputed domain names.    See Antioch Co. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 1042590 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 31, 2007) (where the same respondent stipulated to the transfer and the relief was granted without analyzing whether the elements of Paragraph 4(a) where met); 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.”).



Having ruled that Respondent’s Response constitutes an explicit consent to transfer, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


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




Hector A. Manoff, Panelist
Dated: May 19, 2009





Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum