Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, Ypsilanti, MI, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is The Professional Crisis Management Association, Inc., Sunrise, FL, USA ("Respondent").

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

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

Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on 07/06/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 07/06/2000.

On 07/12/2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "HIGHSCOPE.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 07/12/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 08/01/2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by e-mail.

On 07/27/2000, 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 July 28, 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, 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.

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 Complainant asserts that during a telephone conversation between the Complainant’s primary contact and the Respondent’s primary contact on 04/08/1999, the Respondent claimed that he had registered the domain name with the intention of using it to promote his Internet Service Provider business. However, the website was not in use at the time of this conversation.

The Complainant asserts that in the same conversation, the Respondent commented that he registered the domain name in question and several others in anticipation that they may some day be of value. He offered to sell the domain name to the Complainant for "a beginning going rate of $5,0000." This was the first of several solicitations in which the Respondent offered to "make the problem go away" if the Complainant would agree to purchase the domain name in question.

The Complainant contends that on or about 09/20/1999, the Respondent posted on the website corresponding to the domain name in question a picture of a "pooping dog". Several educators, searching for the Complainant’s site, contacted the Complainant regarding the graphic on the domain name in question. The Complainant asserts that this was an intentional attempt by the Respondent to tarnish and disrupt the Complainant’s business.

The Complainant contends that the domain name in question now displays "Future site for … A.B.C. – Advance Behavior Consulting". The Complainant contends that this further demonstrates that the Respondent is not using the domain name for a bona offering of goods or services. Instead, the Complainant suggests that the Respondent’s future business causes trademark dilution by creating confusion with the Complainant’s educational and child development consulting services.

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 U.S. trademark registrations for the mark, HIGH SCOPE, No. 1, 461,879; registered 10/20/1987, for magazines and books pertaining to educational development and No. 1,462,318; registered 10/20/1987, for workshop and seminar services in the educational field.

The Complainant has registered the domain name <highscope.org> to offer its research, workshops, seminars, and publications to Internet users.

The Respondent registered the domain name in question on 01/14/1998.

In a telephone conversation, the Respondent offered the domain name for sale to the Complainant for $5,000. This was the first of many subsequent solicitations by the Respondent. The Respondent claimed intentions to use the website for legitimate business interests. Instead of using the website for such purposes, he intentionally posted an offensive picture on the website. The Respondent has made no changes to the website reflecting his intention to start any legitimate business activity.

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 obtain an order 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 rights in the registered mark HIGH SCOPE. The Respondent’s domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <charlesjourdan.com> is identical to Complainant’s marks).

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 domain name in question is not a mark by which the Respondent is commonly known. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

The Respondent has made no claim that it is using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the site. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), (iii). In conversations with the Complainant, the Respondent indicated intent to use the domain name for an Internet Service Provider business. However, no steps to use the domain name in such a manner were taken prior to or following the telephone conversation with the Complainant. Also, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent first claimed an intention to use the domain name for an Internet business and then indicated that he was going to use the domain name as a behavior consulting business. This drastic change draws the inference that the Respondent had no legitimate business plan to use the domain name whatsoever.

The above reasons, in addition to the Respondent’s default in responding to the Complaint, leads the panel to conclude that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in question.

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

The Respondent offered the domain name for sale to the Complainant for $5,000. This reveals that the Respondent acquired the domain name for the purpose of selling the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Policy ¶ (4)(b)(i). The site now indicates intent to use the domain name for a consulting business. This is evidence of bad faith. See The Avenue, Inc. & United Retail Inc. v. Guirguis, D2000-0013 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent informed the Complainant of the intent to form a business in the same field as the Complainant, but at the same time, offered the domain name for sale to the Complainant).

The Respondent also used the domain name to attract Internet users to an on-line location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the Respondent’s website. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The most recent postings indicate that the Respondent attracted users to the website for commercial gain by offering competing services; earlier content of the website that Internet users were linked to was in poor taste and disrupted the Complainant’s business. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).

Based on the above, the panel concludes that the Respondent registered and used the domain name in question 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, "HIGHSCOPE.COM", be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.