National Arbitration Forum




Michael A. Reggio c/o The Reggio Register Co. Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates- NA NA

Claim Number: FA0904001257190



Complainant is Michael A. Reggio c/o The Reggio Register Co. Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kevin R Haley, of Brann & Isaacson, Maine, 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 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.


Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 10, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 13, 2009.


On April 13, 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 22, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 12, 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 Response was received and determined to be deficient pursuant to ICANN Rule 5 because it was not received prior to the Response deadline. 


On May 20, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.



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



A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the domain names at issue is indentical or confusingly similar to its famous mark,; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name sat issue; and that the domain names at issue was registered in bad faith.


B. Respondent


Respondent agrees to the relief requested by the Complainant.




Deficient Response


Respondent’s Response was not received until after the Response deadline had passed.  The Panel, has chosen to accept this Response.  See J.W. Spear & Sons PLC v. Fun League Mgmt., FA 180628 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (finding that where respondent submitted a timely response electronically, but failed to submit a hard copy of the response on time, “[t] he Panel is of the view that given the technical nature of the breach and the need to resolve the real dispute between the parties that this submission should be allowed and given due weight”).


Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer


In the Response, Respondent agrees to transfer the domain names at issue to Complainant.  The Panel finds that as 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 has decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <> and <> domain names.  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 <> and <> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.




Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 4, 2009







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum