Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Lifezone, Inc., Hyde Park, UT, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is DotDNS.com, Korea ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "LIFEZONE.COM", registered with Bulkregister.com.

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.

Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on 07/28/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 07/24/2000.

On 08/01/2000, Bulkregister.com confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "LIFEZONE.COM" is registered with Bulkregister.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.

On 08/07/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 08/28/2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by e-mail. It was also e-mailed to postmaster@lifezone.com.

On September 11, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.

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

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s registration of the domain name that is the subject of this Complaint is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and said domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. Also, Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and has registered same for the purpose of selling the registration to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

The Respondent contends that the domain name was available for registration and they have invested an enormous amount of money developing the site.

The Complainant has utilized the Life Zone mark since January, 1986 to identify and distinguish a variety of their products including nutritional supplements, mineral supplements, vitamins, skin care products, and mineral supplements for plants.

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 domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark with the except of the space between "life" and "zone" . It is not unreasonable for an average consumer to assume that the lifezone.com website belongs to the Complainant’s company.

There is no evidence to indicate that the Respondent has ever, as an individual, business or other organization, been commonly known by the name "lifezone." The Respondent has not used or given any indication to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. See Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enterprises, Inc., D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (Finding that failure to provide a product or service or develop the site demonstrates that the Respondents have not established any rights or legitimate interests in the said domain name).

As stated above, the Respondent has not made any offering of goods or services on this website; it merely directs a potential consumer to an offer to sell the domain name. Secondly, the Respondent quoted the Complainant a price of $20,000 to purchase the domain name. See Omni Financial Corporation v. Net Ascent of Northern California, FA92049 (Nat. Arb. Forum February 22, 2000) (finding that the Respondent registered and acquired the domain name <omniloan.com> primarily for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring the same domain name registration to the Complainant, who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark, or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name).

As all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a) have been satisfied, it is the decision of this panelist that the requested relief be granted.

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