Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Education World, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK, USA ("Complainant") represented by Leslie C. McKnew, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP. The Respondent is Education World, Kanfield, OH, USA ("Respo ndent").

The domain name at issue is "educationworld.org" registered with Network Solutions.

On December 21,2000, pursuant to Complainantís request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist.

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

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on November 16, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 20, 2000.

On November 17, 2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "educationworld.org" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verifie d 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 ICANNís 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 transmi tted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondentís registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@educationworld.org 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.

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 Forumís Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, withou t 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

Complainant asserts that the domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainantís family of marks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the domain name was registered and used in bad fai th.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has not disputed the contentions addressed in the Complaint.

Complainant owns the rights to its corporate and trade name and to several U.S. registrations for marks that are comprised of or include the term EDUCATION WORLD for, among other things, educational services. Specifically, Complainant owns registr ations and a pending application for the marks EDUCATION WORLD^® (Reg. No. 2,393,448); EDUCATION WORLD^® (and Design) (Reg. No. 2,119,615); EDUCATION WORLD^® (and Design) (Reg. No. 2,119,621); and EDUCATION WORLD^™ (Stylized) (Serial No. 75-822,107). Similarly, Complainant uses and owns the rights to various Internet domain names that are comprised of or include Education Worldís EDUCATION WORLD^® marks and names, including "www .educationworld.com," "www.myeducationworld.com," and "www.myeducation-world.com." Complainantís use of its EDUCATION WORLD^® family of marks and names dates back to at least as early as August 1996 for educational services, among other things.

Since at least as early as August 2000, Complainant has made numerous efforts to contact Respondent to assert Education Worldís exclusive rights in its marks and to discuss Respondentís improper use of the "educationworld.org" domain name, al l of which have been to no avail. Complainant has sent correspondence to the address listed in NSIís WHOIS database for Respondent, which have been returned as undeliverable, and has sent email communications to the email address listed for Respondent in the WHOIS database, all of which have gone unanswered. Complainant also has called the telephone number listed for Respondent in the WHOIS database, however, the person at the telephone number has no connection with, and has never heard of, Respo ndent. Moreover, the web site associated with the "educationworld.org" domain name does not provide any indication as to who is operating the site or any contact information for the Respondent.

Respondent uses the domain name to connect to a website which offers educational services similar to those offered by the Complainant.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rule s and any rules and principles of law that it seems applicable". The Respondent has not submitted any answer to the Panel. Pursuant to Rule 15(a), the Panel will decide this dispute based solely upon the Complainantís submission, ICANN Rules and Policy, and other applicable principles of law.

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 subject domain name, "educationworld.org," is essentially identical to Complainantís corporate and trade names, as well as the several registered trademarks and domain names for which the Complainant is the exclusive owner. The addit ion of the ".org" and the elimination of the space between words in the mark do not deprive the Complainantís rights in the mark by establishing a distinct mark.

It is not questionable that confusion would likely arise when and if the Respondent, or any third party not affiliated with the Complainant, were to start using the contested domain name in conjunction with goods and/or services similar to those of the Complainant. See Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Industrial Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainantís website, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has met the burden set forth under Policy � 4.a.(i).

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the "educationworld.org" domain name. Respondent does not deny this assertion.

Respondent did not seek registration of the "educationworld.org" domain name until November 30, 1999, well after Complainantís common law and federal registration rights in its EDUCATION WORLD^® family of marks and names wer e well-established. Given Complainantís prior and exclusive rights in its family of EDUCATION WORLD^® names and marks, Respondent can have no legitimate rights in the "educationworld.org" domain name, particularly when used, as Re spondent currently does, in connection with the offering of education related services, which are closely related to, if not competitive with, the services Complainant offers under its EDUCATION WORLD^® names and marks. Offering competitive services in connection with a domain name which infringes upon anotherís trademark is not a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy � 4.c.(i).

Further, the Respondent has not offered any evidence that it is commonly known by the EDUCATION WORLD phrase under Policy � 4.c.(ii) or that it is using the domain name in connection with a noncommercial purpose under Policy � 4.c.(iii). Given the Com plainantís established use of its EDUCATION WORLD marks it is unlikely that the Respondent is commonly known by this mark. It is more likely that the Respondent purposefully registered this domain name and chose to do business under this term in order to infringe upon the Complainantís good will. Therefore, the Panel determines that the Complainant has established its burden set forth under Policy � 4.a.(ii).

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. The Respondent has not denied this assertion.

Respondentís failure to provide any correct contact information since at least August 2000 in either NSIís WHOIS database (which constitutes a material breach of NSIís Service Agreement under paragraph 15 and supports deletion of the registratio n) or on the web site associated with the subject domain name is an indicia of bad faith as envisioned under ICANNís Dispute Resolution Policy.

By registering the subject domain name and providing at the web site associated with the subject domain name education related services, which are closely related to (if not competitive with) the services offered under Complainantís marks, Respondent i s intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its family of EDUCATION WORLD^® names and marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondentís web site or the services offered on Respondentís web site. Policy � 4.b.(iv). See Franpin SA v. Paint Tools S.L., D2000-0052 (WIPO May 25, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent, a company financially linked to the Complainantís main competitor, registered and used the domain name in question to disrupt the Complainantís business).

The Respondent has not made any changes to the website for a substantial period of time. Registration of a domain name coupled with retention of that name by a competitor without any use of that name over an extended period of time can evidence bad fa ith registration and use. Policy � 4.b.(iii). See Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Industrial Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000)

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has met the burden set forth under Policy � 4.a.(iii).

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, "educationworld.org", be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.