WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
National Osteoporosis Foundation v. Texas International Property Associates - NA NA
Case No. D2008-0913
1. The Parties
The Complainant is National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington, DC, United States of America, represented by Hogan & Hartson, L.L.C., United States of America.
The Respondent is Texas International Property Associates - NA NA, Dallas, Texas, United States of America, of United States of America, represented by 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 June 16, 2008. On June 17, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Compana LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On June 18, 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 June 25, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 15, 2008. The Response was filed with the Center on July 15, 2008.
The Center appointed Frederick M. Abbott, Carol Anne Been and Steven Fox as panelists in this matter on August 20, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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. Decision Based Upon Consent
The Registrar has confirmed that Respondent is registrant of the disputed domain name.
Respondent has elected to give its informed consent to a decision by the Panel ordering transfer of the disputed domain name.
The Panel has reviewed the case file and has found no reason to refuse acceptance of Respondent’s consent.
As a matter of administrative economy the Panel does not consider it necessary to further assess the subject matter of the Complaint.1
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name should be transferred to Complainant.
5. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, 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.
Frederick M. Abbott
Presiding Panelist
Carol Anne Been
Panelist
Steven Fox
Panelist
Dated: September 2, 2008
1 The Panel takes note that Respondent has previously been determined to have engaged in abusive domain name registration and use under the Policy for conduct similar to that it has engaged in with respect to Complainant. See, e.g., The Diller Corporation c/o Formica Corporation v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2008-0628, and Brownells, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2007-1211. In any subsequent contested proceedings (i.e., not involving consent to transfer) under the Policy involving Respondent such determinations should provide a sufficient basis for determinations whether Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration of domain names. A factual determination in this proceeding is not required as further evidence.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy