WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Tractor Supply Company v. Texas International Property Associates NA NA Case No. D2008-1547 1. The Parties
Complainant is Tractor Supply Company, of Tennessee, United States of America, represented by Waller Lansden Dortch and Davis, PLLC, United States of America.
Respondent is Texas International Property Associates NA NA, of Texas, United States of America, represented by the Law Office of Gary Wayne Tucker, United States of America. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names:
are registered with Compana LLC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 10, 2008. On October 10, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Compana LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 13, 2008, Compana LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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” or “UDRP”), 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 November 4, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 24, 2008. The Response was filed with the Center on November 25, 2008.
The Center appointed Bruce E. O'Connor as the sole panelist in this matter on December 4, 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
Since as early as 1938, Complainant, or its predecessors-in-interest, has operated a agricultural product supply retail business under the TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY service mark. In its business, Complainant has adopted and used several variations of TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, including TRACTOR SUPPLY, TRACTOR SUPPLY CO., and TSC (the “TRACTOR SUPPLY Marks”).
Complainant is the owner of United States trademark registration number 3,039,473 for TRACTOR SUPPLY CO. (standard characters) and United States trademark registration number 1,846,015 for TSC TRACTOR SUPPLY CO (and design).
Complainant is also the registrant of the following domain names: ; ; ; .
Respondent has registered the following domain names: (December 10, 2004); (December 10, 2004); (February 19, 2005); (February 28, 2005); (October 18, 2005); (November 8, 2005); (June 15, 2006). 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant is the owner of the TRACTOR SUPPLY Marks. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to those trademarks. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and has adopted and used those domain names in bad faith.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Complainant also requests that the Panel examine the merits of this dispute in its opinion so as to promote the public's interest by issuing an opinion against Respondent discouraging Respondent's parasitic conduct and assisting future Complainants who have been similarly targeted by Respondent. B. Respondent
Respondent by its late-filed Response, agrees to the relief requested by Complainant. Respondent does not make an admission of the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, but offers a “unilateral consent to transfer.” 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with the findings of panels in numerous other cases involving this very Respondent, this Panel finds it appropriate to grant Respondent's request to transfer under paragraph 10 of the Rules. See, e.g., Amgen Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-0155 and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Texas International Property Associates – NA NA, WIPO Case No. D2008-1451.
The Panel notes Complainant's request to make findings on the elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. The basis for this request is understandable – Respondent has utilized the tactic of consent to transfer in over 85 prior UDRP case which indeed calls into a significant question Respondent's business practices under paragraph 2 of the Policy.
In President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Texas International Property Associates NA NA, WIPO Case No. D2008-0597, the Panel did make findings:
“Complainant contends that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter, and points to 40 WIPO cases involving Respondent, all of which found against Respondent. Having recently had a number of cases involving Respondent, the Panel is compelled to agree. In all of these recent cases Respondent effectively used a template response, substituting names and dates that were unique to a particular case. Each case included the same language and case citations in consenting to the transfer of the domain name without admitting that Respondent acted in bad faith and without conceding any of the three elements which must be established under the policy. Respondent consistently requests that the transfer be compelled without consideration of the factors. This Panel cannot condone Respondent's conduct in such manner. In the present case, Respondent has acted in serious bad faith.”
Giving due respect to the Panel in President and Fellows of Harvard College, this Panel points out that paragraph 4(i) of the Policy limits the remedies of Complainant, to either cancellation or transfer of the disputed domain names. The consent to transfer gives the Complainant the relief to which it is entitled and that the Panel is authorized to give – nothing less, nothing more.
In the interests of expediency in Complainant's requested relief of transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel denies Complainant's request to make findings under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 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 names, , , , , , , and be transferred to Complainant.
Bruce E. O'Connor
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 16, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy