Accolo, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates
Case No. D2008-0168
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Accolo, Inc., of Larkspur, California, United States of America, represented by The Moore Law Group, of the United States of America.
The Respondent is Texas International Property Associates, of Dallas, Texas, United States of America, represented by the Law Office of Gary Wayne Tucker, of the United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <myaccolo.com> is registered with Compana LLC.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 31, 2008. On February 4, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Compana LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On February 7, 2008, Compana LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 8, 2008 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complaint filed an Amended Complaint on February 14, 2008. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the Amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 19, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 10, 2008. The Response was filed with the Center on March 10, 2008.
The Center appointed Paul E. Mason as the sole panelist in this matter on March 18, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
For the reasons set forth below, there is no need to elaborate on the factual background of this case.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
For the reasons set forth below, there is no need to describe Complainant’s contentions.
B. Respondent
In its Response dated March 10, 2008, Respondent has formally and voluntarily consented to transfer of the domain name to Complainant, without any need for this Panel to review the facts and legal issues surrounding the claim of Complainant.
6. Discussion and Findings
Respondent cites The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1132 to support the proposition that a panel may authorize a voluntary offer by a respondent to transfer a disputed domain name, without necessarily accepting the facts or arguments set forth by the complainant.
The Panel in Cartoon Network reasoned as follows:
“A number of Panel decisions have considered the proper course where a respondent has unilaterally consented to transfer a disputed domain name to a complainant. There have been at least three courses proposed: (i) to grant the relief requested by the Complainant on the basis of the Respondent’s consent without reviewing the facts supporting the claim (see Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207; Slumberland France v. Chadia Acohuri,WIPO Case No. D2000-0195); (ii) to find that consent to transfer means that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) are deemed to be satisfied, and so transfer should be ordered on this basis (Qosina Corporation v. Qosmedix Group,WIPO Case No. D2003-0620; Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB,WIPO Case No. D2000-1398); and (iii) to proceed to consider whether on the evidence the three elements of paragraph 4(a) are satisfied because the Respondent’s offer to transfer is not an admission of the Complainant’s right (Koninklijke PhilipsElectronics N.V. v. Manageware,WIPO Case No. D2001-0796) or because there is some reason to doubt the genuineness of the Respondent’s consent (Société Française du Radiotéléphone-SFR v. Karen,WIPO Case No. D2004-0386; Eurobet UK Limited v. Grand Slam Co,WIPO Case No. D2003-0745).
“There is a difference between a unilateral consent to transfer and an admission of the elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. A respondent might consent to transfer in circumstances where bad faith would be strongly denied (for example, where a domain name was registered in error). Accordingly, this Panel does not accept that a unilateral consent to transfer ‘deems’ proved the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
“However, this Panel considers that a genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. Where the Complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, then pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer. This is clearly the most expeditious course (see Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207).”
This case is simpler than Cartoon Network because this case involves only one disputed domain name. In Cartoon Network, the panel accepted the voluntary offer to transfer some of the disputed domain names but had to rule on the dispute concerning the remaining domain names at issue. This is not the situation here.
The Panel agrees with the reasoning in the Cartoon Network decision and accepts Respondent’s voluntary consent to transfer the domain name.
7. Decision
For the foregoing reason, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <myaccolo.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Paul E. Mason Sole Panelist
Dated: March 31, 2008
Stay updated! Get new cases and decisions by daily email.
