Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is The Museum Company, Inc., Fairfield, NJ, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is The Word Bank, Montreal, Canada, ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "themuseumcompany.com", registered with Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").

The Panelist certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Hon. James A. Carmody, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on August 14, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 14, 2000.

On August 15, 2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "themuseumcompany.com" is registered with NSI and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NSI has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions Service Agreement Version 4.0 and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On August 22, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 11, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@themuseumcompany.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, The Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On September 18, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that The Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform Rules "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, The Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

B. Respondent

No response was filed by the Respondent.

The Complainant is an international retailer of museum related merchandise, in business since 1989. The Complainant operates a network of 96 retail stores with annual sales in excess of $100 million. The Complainant also has an active Internet retailing operation, in place since 1997.

The Respondent registered the domain name on December 16, 1998. The Respondent has not used, nor demonstrated preparations to use, the domain name. The Respondent’s registration is expected to expire on December 16, 2000.

On several occasions, the Complainant has unsuccessfully attempted to acquire the domain name from the Respondent through a negotiated sale and transfer. In each instance, the domain name was offered for sale at an inflated price such that the parties could not reach an agreement.

The Respondent’s failure to provide a response indicates that the Respondent is in violation of ICANN Policy. Based on Rule 14(b), the Panel will draw adverse inferences from the Respondent’s failure to respond. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint).

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant has rights in the mark "The Museum Company." The Complainant owns the U.S. trademark registration for the mark, "The Museum Company", Number 1,654,111. This mark was registered on August 13, 1991. The domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety and contains no other terms except for the required Internet suffix, <.com>. Therefore, the domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered mark. See Technology Properties, Inc. v. Burris, FA 94424 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding that the domain name <radioshack.net> is identical to the Complainant’s mark, RADIO SHACK).

Policy ¶ 4.c. provides circumstances by which the Respondent can prove rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Respondent has failed to offer any evidence that would indicate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) ("By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name").

The Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has made any use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial use. Policy ¶ 4.c.(i) – (iii). The panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name.

Policy ¶ 4.b.(i) states that acquiring a domain name with the intent to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of out of pocket costs is evidence of bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent offered to sell the domain name to the Complainant for inflated prices. The Respondent has not denied this assertion. Based on this, the Panel concludes that the Respondent is in violation of Policy ¶ 4.b.(i), which is evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name. See Parfums Christain Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent’s WHOIS registration information contained the words, "This is domain names is for sale.").

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, "THEMUSEUMCOMPANY.COM", be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.