Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is AltaVista Company , Palo Alto , CA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Laurie S Gill, Palmer & Dodge LLP. Respondent is Tubul Law Consulting, Memphis, TN, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is attavista.com registered with Names4Ever dba Abacus America.

The Panelist certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that 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 September 13, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 8, 2000.

On October 3, 2000, Names4Ever dba Abacus America confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name attavista.com is registered with Names4Ever dba Abacus America and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Names4Ever dba Abac us America has verified that Respondent is bound by the Names4Ever dba Abacus America registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On October 3, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 23, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respo ndent 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@attavista.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 October 31, 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 Respondent.

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

Complainant asserts the following with respect to the domain name attavista.com:

B. Respondent did not submit a response.

Complainant, AltaVista Company ("AltaVista"), is a world-renowned provider of Internet search, information, e-commerce, and portal services. As a majority-owned operating company of CMGI, Inc., it is part of the most diverse network of Internet com panies in the world. It has one of the World Wide Web’s largest search indices (350 million pages) and directories (2 million pages) and performs more than 40 million search queries each day. Complainant has been using the mark ALTAVISTA to identify its c ompany and Internet services since December of 1995.

Complainant owns registrations or has applied for registration of the trademark ALTAVISTA in over one hundred countries around the world. The registrations in the United States are as follows:

The Complainant owns the domain name altavista.com and has operated a website at altavista.com since December of 1995.

Respondent registered the domain name attavista.com in August 2000, more than four and one-half years after Complainant’s adoption and first use of its ALTAVISTA mark.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that a 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) 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’s numerous trademark registrations evidence established rights in the ALTAVISTA mark. Additionally, the notoriety and goodwill associated with the ALTAVISTA mark is obvious from the number of individuals who have attempted to profit fro m its goodwill. See AltaVista Company v. Andrew Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO October 25, 2000); AltaVista Company v. Jean-Daniel Gamache, FA 95249 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000); AltaVista Company v. DomainforSale, FA 95500 (Nat. Arb. Fo rum Oct. 24, 2000); AltaVista Company v. Global Net 2000 Inc., FA 95483 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 10, 2000) (finding respectively that the domain names altavisga.com, altaivsta.com, altavizta.com, ltavista.com are confusingl y similar to Complainant’s ALTAVISTA mark).

A substantial number of UDRP decisions find confusing similarity where a domain name registrant adds or deletes a single letter to a famous mark or misspells an otherwise famous mark. See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 200 0) (finding that the domain name geociites.com is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GEOCITIES mark); Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding that the domain names, davemathewsband.com and da vemattewsband.com, are common misspellings and therefore confusingly similar).

Therefore, this Panel concludes that in this instance, the domain name attavista.com is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALTAVISTA mark.

No evidence suggests or permits any inference that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interest in the attavista.com domain name. Use of the attavista.com domain name to direct Internet users to a search engine that competes with Complainant is hardly a bona fide offering of goods and services. See ICANN Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Respondent has not demonstrated that he is commonly known as ATTAVISTA. See ICANN Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent’s use of the attavista.com d omain name is not fair use or noncommercial. See ICANN Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

This Panel concludes that Respondent failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name attavista.com.

This Panel also finds that the domain name attavista.com was registered and is being used in bad faith. Based on the high degree of similarity between Complainant’s mark and Respondent’s domain name, the only reasonable conclusion is that Re spondent registered the domain name in order to trade off the goodwill of Complainant’s mark. See AltaVista Company v. Jean-Daniel Gamache, FA 95249 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that Respondent used confusingly similar domain nam es to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website).

This Panel concludes that the domain name attavista.com was registered and is being used 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, attavista.com, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.