Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is CSICOP, Inc., Amherst, NY, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Squatting Dog Productions, Brooklyn, NY, USA ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are "CSICOP.COM" and "CSICOP.NET", registered with Network Solutions Inc. ("NSI").

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

Hon. James A. Carmody, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on June 22, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 22, 2000.

On June 27, 2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain names "CSICOP.COM" and "CSICOP.NET" are 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 June 29, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 19, 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 19, 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 25, 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.

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

A. Complainant

B. Respondent

The Complainant was formed in 1976 and was incorporated on November 9, 1978. Complainant filed for U.S. trademark for the mark CSICOP on December 14, 1999 (No. 75/871,873). CSICOP stands for "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal." The Complainant registered the domain name <csicop.org> in September 1995.

The Respondent registered the domain names in question in January 1999. The Respondent also owns the domain name registrations for the following domain names, <psicop.com>, <psicop.net>, and <psicop.org>. The Respondent uses these domain names to advertise the services of Riley G, a "psychic detective and remote viewer".

When the domain names in question were first registered, they were not utilized. Then, the websites contained a parody of the Complainant’s CSICOP mark and the Complainant’s website. On May 31, 2000, the domain names were linked to <psicop.com>. In June 2000, the domain names in question and the Respondent’s registered domain names linked to a merged website, which features the "Blood Brothers."

The Respondent offered to sell the contested domain names for $1,000,000 each. The offer was made via e-mail. In May 2000, a CSICOP member mistakenly entered the Respondent’s website. He realized that the Respondent owned the domain names at issue and offered to buy them for $1,000. The Respondent offered to sell the domain names for $500,000 each.

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 names registered by the Respondent are 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 names; and

(3) the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

The Complainant has rights in the mark CSICOP. The Respondent’s domain names are identical to the Complainant’s mark. See Nabisco Brands Co. v. The Patron Group, D2000-0032 (WIPO Feb. 23, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s domain names, <wheatthins.com>, <wheatsworth.com>, <bettercheddars.com>, <harvestcrisps.com>, <milk-bone.com>, etc. are identical to the Complainant’s marks).

The Respondent asserts no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names in question.

The names do not reflect names by which the Respondent is commonly known, nor is the Respondent using the sites in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii).

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 names at issue. See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., No. D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000).

The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and, therefore, does not deny that the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, as alleged by Complainant.

The Respondent initially held the domain names without developing the corresponding websites. See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (finding that passive holding of a domain name is use of the domain name in bad faith). The Respondent then used the domain names to attract Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

The Respondent also registered the domain names for the purpose of selling the domain names to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). This is revealed by the Respondent’s offer to sell the domain names for $1,000,000, each, to the Complainant. The Respondent also offered to sell the domain names to one of the Complainant’s members for $500,000. This is evidence of bad faith. See The Step2 Co. v. Softastic.com Corp., D2000-0393 (WIPO June 26, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s attempt to sell the domain name in question on <greatdomains.com>, a domain name auction site, for $100,000 constitutes bad faith).

Based on the above, the panel concludes that the Respondent registered and used the domain names 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, "CSICOP.COM" and "CSICOP.NET" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.