Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc , Auburn Hills, MI, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Crystal Whitaker Millennialtek Industries, Lakeland, FL, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "thepalaceofauburnhills.com" registered with Domain Registration Services.

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

Judge Ralph Yachnin, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on November 15, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 15, 2000.

On November 27, 2000, Domain Registration Services confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "thepalaceofauburnhills.com" is registered with Domain Registration Services and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domain Registration Services has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domain Registration Services registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On November 27, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 18, 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@thepalaceofauburnhills.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 December 20, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin, 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

The Complainant asserts that the domain name at issue is identical to the Complainant’s mark. In addition, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name at issue. And finally, Respondent has registered the domain in question in bad faith because Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of selling the domain name to the Complainant for $550,000.

B. Respondent

Complainant, Palace Sports & Entertainment, has used the mark "The Palace of Auburn Hills" continuously for twelve years in relation to its sports arena. The Palace of Auburn Hills is the home of the Detroit Pistons, a NBA basketball team, and has been nationally and internationally associated with the Detroit Pistons.

Respondent, Crystal Whitaker, serves as President of Millennialtek Industries. The Respondent contacted the Complainant in May of 2000 to offer the domain name "The Palace of Auburn Hills" for sale.

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’s rights are evidenced by its registered mark. The Respondent’s domain name is found to be identical to the Complainant’s mark. Policy ¶ 4.a.(i). Other than the .com, there is no difference between the Complainant’s mark and the Respondent’s registered domain name. See Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name ROBOHELP.COM is identical to complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference"); see also 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).

Respondent has asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor is Respondent using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods, services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Policy ¶ 4.c.(i)-(iii).

Consequently, Respondent’s failure to show evidence sufficient to refute Complainant’s allegations, entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in regard to the domain name at issue. See Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc. and D3M Domain Sales, AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where no such right or interest is immediately apparent to the Panel, and Respondent has not come forward to suggest any such right or interest that it may possess).

The Panel finds that the Respondent has acted in bad faith because circumstances indicate that Respondent registered the domain name in question primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. Policy ¶ 4.b.(i). See Dynojet Research, Inc. v. Norman, AF-0316 (eResolution Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith when he requested monetary compensation beyond out of pocket costs in exchange for the registered domain name); see also Cream Pie Club v. Brittany Halford, FA95235 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith existed where the Respondent offered the domain name for sale to the Complainant for $125,000).

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be granted.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the domain name thepalaceofauburnhills.com be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.