WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Harte-Hanks, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates Case No. D2008-1281 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Harte-Hanks, Inc., San Antonio, Texas, United States of America, represented by Ruberto Israel & Weiner, United States of America.
The Respondent is Texas International Property Associates, Dallas, Texas, United States of America, represented by Law Office of Gary Wayne Tucker, United States of America. 2. The Domain Names
The disputed domain names
are registered with Compana LLC a/k/a B. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center) on August 20, 2008. On August 22, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Compana LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On August 25, 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 “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”) on August 26, 2008.
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 August 26, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 15, 2008. The Response was filed with the Center on September 16, 2008.
The Center appointed Terrell C. Birch as the sole panelist in this matter on October 7, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independent, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
Complainant does business under the name Harte-Hanks, Inc. and has registered the words Harte Hanks (or Harte-Hanks) as trademarks in the United States of America and fourteen other countries. The Complainants' business involves instructing and consulting in computer systems, software, direct marketing, and custom computer programming services. Complainant has and maintains a website at “” and maintains forty-two other domain names, thirty of which are composed of Harte-Hanks or HarteHanks with various TLDs. A division of Complainant also has a website at “”.
Respondent has registered the complained of domain names, all of which contain Complainant's mark whether verbatim or with only a slight misspelling. 5. Parties Contentions
A. Complainant has presented a demand for transfer of the disputed domain names.
B. Respondent has agreed to this transfer without further contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Because Respondent has consented to the relief requested by Complainant, this Panel finds that it is not necessary to review in detail the facts supporting the claim. Indeed, the facts, per se, are not disputed and Respondent has acceded to the demand that all of the domain names be transferred to the Complainant.
This approach is consistent with prior Panel decisions. (Halcyon Yarn, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates – NA NA, WIPO Case No. D2008-0174, March 21, 2008; Williams-Sonoma, Inc. vs. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207, May 5 2000). As in past cases, the Panel here believes that pursuant to the caution for “due expedition” in Rule 10(c) the best and most expeditious course is to treat Respondent's accession as a genuine unilateral consent to transfer and the basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the elements of Paragraph 4(a). 7. 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 names , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Terrell C. Birch
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 14, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy