Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

David G. Cook, Veradale, WA, USA
COMPLAINANT,

vs.

This Domain is For Sale, Montgomery, TX, USA
RESPONDENT.

DECISION
Claim Number: FA0006000094957

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(s) 

The domain name at issue is “CAMPTIME.COM”, registered with Melbourne IT DBA Internet Names Worldwide (Internet Names Worldwide).

PANELIST

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on 06/05/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 06/05/2000.

On 06/05/2000, Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name, “CAMPTIME.COM”, is registered with Internet Names Worldwide and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.

On 06/07/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 06/27/2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via email, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by email.

On 06/27/2000, 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 06/29/2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records in the case file, 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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is identical to its trademark registered for and in use by the Complainant.  Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is a Cybersquatter, has no rights or legitimate interests to the domain name, and has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.        

B. Respondent

The Respondent submitted no response in this matter.

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the U.S. trademark CAMP TIME (filed: Dec. 13, 1982; registered Sept. 11, 1984; No. 1,294,315) for collapsible foldable tables and stools for camping.  Complainant currently markets its products on the website <camptimeinc.com> because CAMPTIME.COM was taken by the Respondent.  The Complainant also recently registered <camptime.org> and <camptime.net>.

The Respondent has registered the domain name CAMPTIME.COM.  When this domain name is entered into the computer, the user is brought to a site advertising <ideatrade.com>, a site that sells domain names.

DISCUSSION

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 support a claim 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 Complainant has offered exhibits in support of its claim and the assertions made therein; the Respondent has submitted no response in the matter.  The Respondent’s failure to dispute the allegations of the Complainant permits the inference that the Complainant’s allegations are true. See Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000).  Further, the Respondent’s failure to respond leads one to believe that the Respondent knows that its website is misleading.  See Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000).  Applying the Policy to the issue in this case furthers these inferences.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has rights in the domain name “CAMPTIME.COM”. 

The Respondent’s domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered mark except for the addition of the domain name level designation “com”.  When potential clients seek the Complainant’s services on the Internet, the Complainant’s mark is more than likely the first domain name entered.  This association is vital in maintaining a business in today’s e-commerce society and the integrity of the mark.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent does not assert any rights or legitimate interests to the domain name in question. 

The name does not reflect a name by which the Respondent is commonly known, nor is the Respondent using the site in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii).  Rather, the Respondent is using the Complainant’s registered mark for the Respondent’s own profit.  The Respondent’s lack of a response in this matter supports the inference that he purchased the domain name in question knowing of the Complainant’s rights in the name and looking for the opportunity to sell the name at a premium price. See EAuto, Inc. v. Available-Domain-Names.com, d/b/a Intellectual-Assets.com, Inc., D2000-0120 (WIPO April 13, 2000).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Respondent does not deny that the name was registered in bad faith.

The Respondent registered and is using the domain name in question to prevent the owner of the trademark (the Complainant) from reflecting the mark in a domain name.  The evidence demonstrates that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct.  Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  When the Respondent purchased the said domain name, he knew or should have known that it would attract people searching for the Complainant’s official site.  The Respondent was obviously aware of the existence of the Complainant and must have known that registration of the domain name would prevent the Complainant from reflecting the name on the Internet.  See The Board of Governors of the University of Alberta v. Michael Katz d.b.a. Domain Names for Sale, D2000-0378 (WIPO June 22, 2000).

The Respondent is clearly in the business of domain name speculation, as evidenced by the contact information provided to the domain name register.  His registration of numerous names (available on the site in question) suggests a pattern of conduct.  Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  Correspondence by the Respondent shows Respondent’s intent to sell trademarked domain names for “$3-5K…instead of [the companies] pursuing more costly legal actions.”  The Respondent registered and is using the name in question for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or the Complainant’s competitors, for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs.  Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).  See EAuto, Inc. v. Available-Domain-Names.com, d/b/a Intellectual-Assets.com, Inc., D2000-0120 (WIPO April 13, 2000).

Based on the preceding facts, the panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

DECISION

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, “CAMPTIME.COM” be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson

Dated: 07/12/2000