Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Wire Association International, Inc.
COMPLAINANT,

vs.

Wirenet Host
RESPONDENT.

DECISION
Claim Number: FA0006000095006

PARTIES

The Complainant is The Wire Association International, Inc., Guilford, CT, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Wirenet Host, Merrifield, VA, USA ("Respondent").

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is “WIRENET.COM”, registered with Network Solutions, Inc. (“NSI”).

PANELIST

Hon. James A. Carmody,  as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on June 12, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 06/12/2000. 

On June 15, 2000, NSI, confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name “WIRENET.COM” is registered with NSI and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  NSI has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions Service Agreement Version 5.0 and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On June 20, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 10, 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 July 10, 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 July 12, 2000,  pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody 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 that domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant or be cancelled.

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 has no rights or legitimate interests to the domain name, and that the respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has submitted no response in this matter.  As a result, all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the Complainant will be deemed true.

FINDINGS

The Complainant owns the registered trademark WIRENET (first used in commerce June 1, 1996; registered January 19, 1999; No. 2,218,858) to promote the interests of the wire industry and wire trade.

The Respondent registered the domain name in question on March 27, 1998.

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 in order to demonstrate claims 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; and

(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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has rights in the registered mark, WIRENET.  The Respondent’s domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark except for the addition of the domain name level designation “com”.  See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “net” or “com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names in question.  The Respondent has not denied that assertion.

The Respondent has made no legitimate use of the domain name at issue.  The Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services nor is the Respondent commonly known by the domain name, as set forth in the Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) – (iii).

For the above stated reasons, the panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name “WIRENET.COM”.

Bad Faith

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent acted and is acting in bad faith.  The Respondent has not denied that assertion.

The Complainant contends that the information listed in the WHOIS database is inaccurate and purposefully misleading based on the nonfunctional e-mail address and telephone number and intentional disregard of the correspondence in this issue.  Providing incomplete and/or false information in the WHOIS directory is evidence of bad faith in domain name disputes. See America Online, Inc. v. QTR Corp., FA 92016 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000).

By using the domain name in question, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.  Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Travel Services, Inc. v. Tour Coop of Puerto Rico, FA 92524 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb 29, 2000) (holding that using domain names which imitate an established tradename “misleadingly diverts consumers as well as tarnishing the trademark or service mark of the Complainant”).  This is evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.  Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

For the previously stated reasons, the Respondent has 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, “WIRENET.COM”, be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

James A. Carmody, Judge (Ret.), Arbitrator
Dated: July 17, 2000