Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is AltaVista Company , Palo Alto, CA, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Global Net 2000, Inc., Tehran, Iran ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "ltavista.com" registered with Network Solutions.

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

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on 08/24/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 08/24/2000.

On 08/28/2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "ltavista.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On 08/30/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 09/19/2000 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@ltavista.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 08/26/2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member Panel, the Forum appointed Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson 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 notic e 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, withou t the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

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

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that Respondent violated Policy ¶ 4.a. (i) – (iii) in the following particulars:

B. Respondent

Respondent neglected to file a response in this matter.

Complainant is a well-known provider of Internet search, information, e-commerce, and portal services. Complainant has one of the World Wide Web’s largest indices and directories and performs more than 40 million search queries each day. Complainan t owns registrations and pending applications for the trademark ALTAVISTA in more than one hundred countries around the world. Complainant has been using its mark since December 1995 and Complainant’s U.S. trademark registrations are as follows:

Complainant owns the domain name <ALTAVISTA.COM>.

On or about 11/29/1997, Respondent registered the domain name in question. The website at this location is currently blank. Respondent changed procedure shortly after Complainant sent Respondent a cease and desist letter on 07/17/2000 but prior to that date, the domain name forwarded users to a site containing two websites, <letssearch.com> and <webcrawlers.com>. Both sites claimed that Complainant was the sponsor of the site. The <webcrawler.com> site is registered to Respondent and the <letssearch.com> site is registered to the administrative, technical, zone, and billing contact for the domain name in question, Siavash Behain.

Respondent seeks to further confuse users by copying the look and feel of the Complainant’s home page. Respondent’s <letssearch.com> website has many subcategories identical to Complainant’s website and uses Complainant’s same color scheme for th e background of the website.

Given Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint, the Panel shall make reasonable inferences based on the Complaint. ICAN+N Rule 14(b).

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.

Complainant has rights in the registered marks ALTAVISTA. The domain name "ltavista.com" is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The only difference between the website and the trademark is the deletion of the letter "a". Common misspellings of marks are confusingly similar to that mark. See AltaVista Co. v. Jean Daniel Gamache, FA 95249 (Nat.. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that <altaivsta.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark).

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent has not denied this assertion. Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor is Respondent otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s ma rks. There is no indication that Respondent used the term "ltavista" prior to registering the domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the "ltavista" term. Policy ¶ 4.c.(ii). Further, directing Internet users to we bsites that offer services similar to the Complainant is not a legitimate use of the domain name. See State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in t he domain name). The Panel determines that Complainant met the burden establishing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name.

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Respondent does not deny this contention.

Respondent’s choice of a confusingly similar variation of Complainant’s famous mark, and Respondent’s use of similar backgrounds, colors, and style of website indicate that Respondent is intentionally infringing on Complainant’s mark to confuse Interne t users. Policy ¶ 4.b.(iv). See Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent attracted users to advertisements). Further, falsely indicating that Compl ainant is the sponsor of Respondent’s website is evidence of bad faith use of the domain name. The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

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, "LTAVISTA.COM" be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist

Dated: 10/10/2000