National Arbitration Forum




Pilgrim Films and Television, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates -NA NA

Claim Number: FA0906001266927



Complainant is Pilgrim Films and Television, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Stephen J. Strauss, of Fulwider Patton 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.


Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 5, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 8, 2009.


On June 9, 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 June 11, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 1, 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 July 1, 2009.


On July 6, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.



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



A. Complainant

Complainant contends among other things, as follows:


Complainant is in the business of producing “reality-based” television shows.


Complainant produces a one-hour, weekly “alternative reality” television series under the mark GHOST HUNTERS, which series follows the exploits of The Atlantic Paranormal Society (“TAPS”), a group of paranormal researchers who use scientific techniques to investigate haunted houses and other locales throughout the United States.

Complainant has used the GHOST HUNTERS mark in connection with various goods and services, and is the owner of United States and foreign registrations covering the GHOST HUNTERS mark for video recordings and entertainment services.


Respondent registered the domain name <> on November 8, 2005,

This domain name incorporates, in its entirety, Complainants’ GHOST HUNTERS mark.

This domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GHOST HUNTERS mark.   

Respondent has never used or developed the <> domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services. 


The disputed <> domain name resolves to a website incorporating a generic search engine and links to third party websites promoting, in part, the sale of Complainant’s GHOST HUNTERS DVDs.


Respondent’s registration and use of the <> domain name creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s GHOST HUNTERS mark. 


Complainant has no relationship with Respondent, nor has Complainant given permission or authorized Respondent to register and use the contested domain name. 

Respondent has not been commonly known by the contested domain name.


Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GHOST HUNTERS mark when it registered the <> domain name.

Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations legitimately to use the domain name <>.


Respondent registered and uses the <> domain name in bad faith by registering and using the domain in an attempt to attract to Respondent’s commercial website Internet users seeking information online about Complainant’s GHOST HUNTERS television show and merchandise. 


Respondent derives commercial benefit by receiving click-through fees for redirecting Internet users to other commercial websites as described in the Complaint.


B. Respondent

Respondent contends as follows:


“Respondent herein agrees to the relief requested by the Complainant and will, upon Order of the Panel, transfer the domain name at issue….”



Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:


i.         the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

ii.       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

iii.      the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


Notwithstanding the foregoing, 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.”


Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions.  See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Ar. Forum Jan. 13, 2004; see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 24, 2005)). 



Respondent’s Response does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, and, in particular, it does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. Rather, Respondent expressly agrees to the transfer of the domain name to Complainant. Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.


It is therefore Ordered that the <> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.





Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: July 20, 2009






Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum