Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is ESPN, Inc., Bristol, CT, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Adventure Enterprises, Honolulu, HI, USA ("Respondent").

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

The undersigned 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.

Herman D. Michels as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on October 30, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 30, 2000.

On November 3, 2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "espninteractive.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the 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 November 3, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 27, 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@espninteractive.com by e-mail.

On December 1, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Herman D. Michels as Panelist.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be cancelled.

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that it is the owner of the ESPN service and trademark which is registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and throughout the world. Complainant further contends that Respondent has registered the domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM which is confusingly similar to its ESPN service and trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent denies the allegations of the Complaint, and specifically denies that it registered and used the domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM in bad faith. Respondent further contends, among other things, that contrary to Complainant’s claim, its domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM offers a hugely valid interactive service, providing clairvoyants and others a place to go on the worldwide web for united positive thinking and praying for positive development throughout the world. Respondent contends that the domain name has been in use since June of 2000, that the website was down throughout October 2000, that the site is now active and functional as of November 15, and that the website shows a complete forum of non-commercial use offering free service that is good for all of mankind. Finally, Respondent contends that the evidence submitted by Complainants should be rejected by the panel and that the relief sought denied.

Complainant is the world’s premier multimedia sports information and entertainment company. Its ESPN-branded operations include an Internet site, four U.S.-based television networks (i.e., ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNEWS and ESPN Classic), various international television networks, a television production company, the ESPN Radio Network, ESPN – The Magazine and other related sports ventures. Launched on September 7, 1979, ESPN’s flagship network, ESPN, is the largest sports cable television network in the United States and reaches almost 80 million U.S. homes. On October 1, 1993, Complainant launched its second cable television network – ESPN2, which is now distributed in over 70 million U.S. homes. Complainant has an extensive international presence and distributes sports programs in 140 different countries throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and the Middle East and is telecast in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese and Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese. Complainant’s licensed programs and marks also reach Europe where they are distributed in 46 countries and in 15 different languages.

On October 4, 1994, Complainant registered the domain name ESPN.COM with Network Solutions for e-mail purposes. In April, 1995, Complainant launched the first Internet-based sports news and information related web site under the domain name ESPN.SPORTSZONE.COM, which on September 3, 1998 became ESPN.COM.

Complainant owns an extensive number of registrations in the United States and throughout the world for its ESPN service mark and trademark. These marks are registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the ESPN name and logo in various categories of goods and services. The ESPN mark is also registered in 82 other countries. Complainant is the owner of the mark ESPN and has exclusive right to its use.

On or about November 19, 1999, Respondent registered the domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM with Network Solutions. After registering the domain name, Respondent did not immediately use the domain name in connection with any offering of goods or services and allowed the domain name to remain inactive for nearly seven months. On June 6, 2000, after learning of Respondent’s registration of the ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM domain name, Complainant sent Respondent a letter advising that the ESPN mark is owned and registered by Complainant and that Respondent’s use of the domain name illegally traded on the valuable equity Complainant had developed in that mark.

The domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ESPN mark and has a tendency to mislead the consuming public as to the source and origin of the services it is offering and suggests affiliation with Complainant that it does not have. Respondent does not have any rights or interest in the domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM. Complainant has exclusive rights to use its ESPN service and trademark.

Respondent has registered the domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM and is using said name in bad faith. By using the said domain name, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other on-line location by creating the likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s service and trademark ESPN as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. Rule 4(b)(iv). See State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent registered the domain name to infringe on Complainant’s good will and attract Internet users to Respondent’s website); Perot Systems Corporation v. Perot.net, FA95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding Bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with Complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Complainant demonstrated bad faith where the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s famous name when registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception and confusion that would inevitably follow if he used the domain names).

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM. Respondent has not made a commercial or non-commercial use of the domain name. Rule 4(c)(i)(iii). See Computer Doctor Franchise Systems, Inc. v. The Computer Doctor, FA95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names). See also Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000).

Additionally, Respondent registered and used the domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM in bad faith by virtue of the fact that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant. Rule 4(b)(iii). In sum, Respondent’s activities constitute an infringement of Complainant’s rights in its ESPN mark and has caused and will continue to cause substantial and irreparable harm to Complainant and its business reputation and good will.

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.

Respondent’s domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ESPN service and trademark.

Respondent does not have any substantial rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM. See Computer Doctor Franchise Systems, Inc. v. The Computer Doctor, FA95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000); Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000).

Respondent registered and is using the domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM in bad faith. By using the said domain name, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s service and trademark ESPN as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. Rule 4(b)(iv). See State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000); Perot Systems Corporation v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) and Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000).

In addition, Respondent registered and used the domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM in bad faith, with the intention of disrupting the business of Complainant. Rule 4(b)(v).

Based upon the above findings and conclusions and pursuant to Rule 4(i) of the rules of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rules of ICANN’s Uniform Domain Resolution Policy, I hereby Order that (1) the domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM be forthwith cancelled by Respondent, Adventure Enterprises, and (2) Respondent Adventure Enterprises cease and desist from any and all use of the domain name ESPNINTERACTIVE.COM