The Complainant is Flor-Jon Films, Inc., Las Vegas, NV, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Ron Larson, PA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are "AMERICANGLADIATOR.COM" and "AMERICANGLADIATORS.COM", registered with Register.com.

Hon. James A. Carmody, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on June 7, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 8, 2000.

On June 15, 2000, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain names "AMERICANGLADIATOR.COM" and "AMERICANGLADIATORS.COM" are registered with Register.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.

On June 8, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 28, 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 11, 2000, The Forum became aware that the Respondent may not have received actual notice of the institution of these proceedings because the "Who Is" page for the disputed domain name is incomplete. Accordingly, upon the motion of Respondent for an extension of time to file a Response, the undersigned granted such an extension until July 28, 2000. Respondent has now filed a Response, which has been fully considered in reaching this Decision.

On June 13, 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. Respondent did not object to such procedure in his Response nor has either of the parties objected to the jurisdiction of The Forum to resolve the issues in this proceeding.

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.

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

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered two domain names that are 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 names, and that the respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Complainant previously owned the domain names at issue, but their registrations were inadvertently allowed to expire due to the change of address of the administrative contact. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s predecessor in interest has offered the domain names at issue for $10,000, each, and has refused to transfer the names to the Complainant.

The Respondent submitted a Response, which does not deny the trademark registration status of "AMERICAN GLADIATORS" or suggest that the domain names at issue are not identical or confusingly similar to the domain names at issue. Rather, Respondent argues that Complainant already has registered the ".net" and ".org" versions of the domain name, and that negligence in failing to maintain the registry of "americangladiators.com" is the cause of Complainant’s loss of the domain name. The Response does not suggest that Respondent is using either of the domain names for any purpose whatsoever. Respondent does not deny that each of the domains at issue has been offered for sale to the public for $10,000.00.

The Complainant is the owner of the U.S trademark AMERICAN GLADIATORS (filed September 17, 1984; registered December 17, 1985; No. 1,376,354) for entertainment services in body building exhibitions. The Complainant has also applied for the trademark for use of AMERICAN GLADIATORS (filed July 13, 1997; No. 75-333636) in connection with a website for sports competition and health club information.

The Respondent listed as the owner of the domain names at issue in the WHOIS directory purchased the names from Bob Christopher. Christopher appears to be in the business of registering and selling domains. In January 2000, Christopher registered the domain names in question and then offered them for sale on his websites, <firstclassdomains.com> and <affordabledomainsforsale.com>, for $10,000 each.

The Complainant notified Christopher of the Complainant’s rights to the AMERICAN GLADIATORS mark and requested transfer of the domain names. Christopher responded by indicating that the domain names were no longer for sale.

The Respondent has not provided complete information in the WHOIS directory, only listing an email address contact. The Complainant sent an email letter advising the Respondent of the Complainant’s rights to the marks and requesting return of the domain names. The Complainant has not received a reply other than the Response filed in this proceeding.

Respondent was or should have been aware that he was purchasing and registering domain names which are identical or deceptively similar to Complainant’s registered trademark. His failure to use or to even state a plan of use of the domain names in question indicates that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names at issue.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") directs 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 claims, whereas the Respondent has failed to rebut those claims by any documentation or convincing argument. The Respondent’s failure to dispute the allegations of the Complainant permits the inference that the Complainant’s allegations are true. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Diego-Arturo Bruckner, D2000-0277 (WIPO May 30, 2000). Applying the Policy to the issue in this case furthers these inferences.

The Complainant has rights in the mark AMERICAN GLADIATORS. The Respondent's domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark. Policy ¶ 4(i).

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

The Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor is making a legitimate or fair use of the domain name. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), (iii). The Respondent’s failure to develop the site demonstrates a lack of legitimate interest in the domain name. See Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enterprises, Inc., D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000).

In addition, the domain name is not a name by which the Respondent is commonly known. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Complainant has never granted the Respondent authorization to use the Complainant’s mark, and the Respondent has not filed any intent to use or trademark the domain names.

These facts militate in favor of a conclusion that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the said domain names.

The Respondent denies that its actions were taken in bad faith. However, Respondent does not dispute that his predecessor in interest offered the domain names for sale to the public for $10,000.00, each.

The Respondent purchased the domain names in bad faith. The Respondent knew or should have reasonably known of the Complainant’s rights to the well-known mark AMERICAN GLADIATORS.

Further, absence of legitimate use is a basis for finding registration in bad faith. See Traditions Ltd. v. Noname.com, FA 94388 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000). The Respondent is simply holding the domain names without any legitimate use. See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (stating that passive holding of a domain name is use of the domain name in bad faith).

Based on the preceding facts and authority, the panel finds that the domain names were registered and 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 names, "AMERICANGLADIATOR.COM" and "AMERICANGLADIATORS.COM" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.