WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. Texas International Property Associates - NA NA Case No. D2008-1438 1. The Parties
The Complainant is JPMorgan Chase & Co. of New York, New York, United States of America, represented internally.
The Respondent is Texas International Property Associates - NA NA of 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 September 22, 2008. On September 23, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Compana LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 24, 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. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint September 26, 2008. 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 September 29, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 19, 2008. The Response was filed with the Center on October 19, 2008.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on November 12, 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 a bank holding corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with its world headquarters located in New York City.
Chase National Bank, a JPMorgan Chase predecessor, was founded in 1877. The Complainant and certain of its predecessors and subsidiaries have used “Chase” as part of their trade name for many years.
The Complainant's mark CHASE was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 24, 1989, and this registration is valid, subsisting and uncancelled. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the domain name is identical to its famous mark, that the Respondent has no rights or interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not file a reply to the Complainant's contentions, but in response to the receipt of the Complaint, the Respondent unilaterally offered to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant without charge.
6. Discussion and Findings
As analyzed by the panel in The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2005-1132, panels, when faced with a “unilateral consent to transfer,” have taken three different approaches. Some panels have granted the relief requested on the basis of a respondent's consent without a review and analysis of the facts supporting the claim. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port,WIPO Case No. D2000-0207; Slumberland France v. Chadia Acohuri, WIPO Case No. D2000-0195. Others have held that the consent to transfer is effectively a concession that the three elements of the Policy have been satisfied, and ordered transfer 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. Still other panels have proceeded to analyze whether the evidence submitted satisfies the three elements of the Policy. Société Française du Radiotéléphone-SFR v. Karen,WIPO Case No. D2004-0386; Eurobet UK Limited v. Grand Slam Co,WIPO Case No. D2003-0745; Brownells, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2007-1211.
In the present case, where, the Respondent has a long track record of abusive registration of domain names, the Panel elects to follow the reasoning of those panels which found that the consent to transfer is a concession that the three elements of the Policy have been satisfied. 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 name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 26, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy