Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Pop Smear, Inc., New York, NY, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Craig Singer, Lauderhill, FL, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "1800POSTCARD.COM", registered with Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI").

Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on 06/01/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 06/01/2000.

On 06/26/2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "1800POSTCARD.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 4.0 and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On 06/22/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 07/12/2000 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 07/12/2000, 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 14, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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.

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

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is identical to and confusingly similar 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.

The Respondent submitted no response in this matter and, accordingly, all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the Complaint will be deemed to be true.

The Complainant owns the registered mark, 1800POSTCARDS.COM (No. 2,264,962). This mark has been registered for almost two years. The mark is used in connection with the Complainant’s postcard printing business and is the Complainant’s toll-free telephone number.

The Respondent registered the domain names 1800postcard.com, 800postcards.com, and postcard.com. 1800POSTCARD.COM, registered on 07/06/1999, is the domain name at issue in this dispute.

The Complainant and Respondent are involved in almost identical postcard printing industries.

The Complainant sent multiple notices of infringement to the Respondent, and the Complainant’s president discussed the matter with the Respondent.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") directs 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.

The Complainant has rights in the registered mark 1800POSTCARDS.COM. The Respondent’s domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark except for the deletion of the letter "s" at the end of the mark. Deleting one letter from the Complainant’s mark creates a confusingly similar domain name. See State Farm v. Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000) (finding that <statfarm.com> was confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, STATE FARM).

The Respondent asserts no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question. The failure of Respondent to produce evidence sufficient to rebut Complainant's allegations entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue. See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., No. D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000).

The Complainant’s marks are not terms by which the Respondent is commonly known. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

The Respondent also has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial, fair use. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), (iii). Rather, the Respondent is using the domain names in question as a means to transport Internet users to his business’s website. See Slep-tone Entertainment Corp. v. Sound Choice Disk Jockeys, Inc., FA 93636 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name because domain name infringes on the Complainant’s mark).

For these reasons, the panel determines that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.

The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and, therefore, cannot deny that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as alleged by Complainant.

It is clear to the panel that the Respondent has registered these domain names to prevent the owner of the trademarks from reflecting the marks in corresponding domain names. Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). It is also evident that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct since he registered multiple domain names containing the Complainant’s mark. See Nabisco Brands Co. v. The Patron Group, Inc., D2000-0032 (WIPO Feb. 23, 2000).

Since the Respondent and the Complainant are competitors in the postcard printing business, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent registered the domain name in question primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of his competitor. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).

The Respondent’s continuing use of the site, with knowledge that he had no right to use the Complainant’s mark, reveals a willful attempt to attract users to an alternative site and cause confusion with the Complainant’s mark. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Marriott Int’l v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum March 13, 2000).

Based on the above, the panel concludes that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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, "1800POSTCARD.COM" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.