Tractor Supply Co. of Texas, LP & Tractor Supply Company v. wanrat chacharoen c/o wanrat

Claim Number: FA0906001268262



Complainant is Tractor Supply Co. of Texas, LP & Tractor Supply Company, (“Complainant”) represented by Justin McNaughton, of Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP, Tennessee, USA.  Respondent is wanrat chacharoen c/o wanrat, (“Respondent”), Thailand.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with



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.


Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on June 12, 2009; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 15, 2009.


On June 15, 2009, confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <> domain name is registered with and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. has verified that Respondent is bound by the registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U. S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).


On June 19, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 9, 2009 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”).


Having received no Response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.


On July 17, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.


Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules.  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.



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



A. Complainant


1.      Respondent’s <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TSC TRACTOR SUPPLY CO mark.


2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <> domain name.


3.      Respondent registered and used the <> domain name in bad faith.


B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.



Complainants, Tractor Supply Co. of Texas, LP & Tractor Supply Company, and its predecessor-in-interest have used the TSC TRACTOR SUPPLY CO mark since 1938 in connection with its retail farm and ranch supply business.  Complainant has registered its TSC TRACTOR SUPPLY CO mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,846,015 issued July 19, 1994).


Respondent registered the <> domain name on May 13, 2009.  The disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays links to Complainant and Complainant’s competitors.



Paragraph 15(a) of 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.”


In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to Paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory.  See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).


Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:


(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.


Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.




Respondent has sent a letter to the National Arbitration Forum that has been labeled as “Other Correspondence.”  Therein Respondent offers to transfer the disputed domain name.  The Panel thus finds that Respondent has consented to transfer of the disputed domain names.  Since Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead has agreed to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel has decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the disputed 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 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, the relief sought by Complainant is GRANTED, and it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.





Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: July 28, 2009






Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page