WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Sir Terence Conran v. Texas International Property Associates - NA NA
Case No. D2008-0358
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Sir Terence Conran, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Demys Limited, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Respondent is Texas International Property Associates - NA NA, Dallas Texas, United States of America, represented by the Law Office of Gary Wayne Tucker, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Compana LLC.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 10, 2008. On March 7, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Compana LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 17, 2008, Compana LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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 March 18, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 7, 2008. The Response was filed with the Center on April 7, 2008.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on April 10, 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
The Complainant is an eminent English designer who has been in business on his own account since 1952, since which time he has been behind chains of furniture and interior design stores, first under the name of Habitat and then under his own name as The Conran Shop, which have been established not only in his native England but also Paris, New York and Tokyo. He has authored many books regarding interior design and furniture since 1974. He owns a number of trademarks in his own name registered in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Europe, including the Community Trade Mark TERENCE CONRAN registered number 003541761 which has a priority date of November 14, 2003.
The disputed domain name was registered in the name of the Respondent on January 4, 2005. It is presently used as a site providing links to many other websites regarding interior design and other matters, including information concerning the Complainant and his stores. The Respondent has been the object of many complaints under the Policy in which the disputed domain names have been transferred to the complainants.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant asserts trademark rights in his own name not only by virtue of its registration as a trademark referred to but also by virtue of his eponymous interior design stores and the many books he has authored. In support of his contention of identity or confusing similarity of the disputed domain name, the Complainant points out that the spelling “terrance” is a common misspelling of his name that is phonetically identical.
The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The Complainant states that there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the Complainant’s name, the Respondent is not licensed by the Complainant to use his name, and has no conceivable legitimate interest in the name. The Complainant states that the Respondent’s use of the website at the disputed domain name is probably a source of pay-per-click revenues from the hyperlinks to third party websites provided, and that such use must be regarded as commercial use of the Complainant’s name, which cannot be regarded as fair and is misleading.
The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the use being made of the disputed domain name by the Respondent amounts to an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s name, falsely suggesting some connection with the Complainant. The Complainant further asserts that the nature of the disputed domain name and its use makes clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and his reputation.
B. Respondent
The Respondent’s Response, whilst not admitting any of the matters asserted by the Complainant in his Complaint, states that it had offered to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant at some time prior to filing the Response and now unilaterally consents to a transfer and requests the Panel to order such a transfer. The Respondent refers to the decision in The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132 as support for the proposition that the proper course for this Panel is not to consider further the assertions of the Complainant in the Complaint and to order the transfer of the disputed domain name, on the basis that this is the most expeditious course, in compliance with Rule 10(c) of the Rules.
6. Discussion and Findings
For the reasons stated by the learned Panel in The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132, this Panel accepts that the Respondent has given its consent to such transfer, and that the most expeditious course for this Panel is to order a transfer of the disputed 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, , be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 14, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy