Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Freightliner LLC, Portland, OR, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Damian Heim, Virginia Beach, VA, USA ("Respondent").

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

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on 06/29/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 07/05/2000.

On 07/05/2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "AMERICANLAFRANCE.NET" 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 07/10/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 07/31/2000 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 07/31/2000, 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 08/03/2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson 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 its service mark 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 contends that the Respondent is an ex-employee of a company that distributes the Complainant’s products. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of using it in an infringing manner and/or to sell it at a profit.

The Respondent submitted no response in this matter. As a result, all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the Complainant can be considered to be true.

The Complainant owns several U.S. trademark registrations as well as trademark registrations in Canada, Mexico, and Australia of the mark AMERICAN LAFRANCE (U.S. registration Nos. 2,201,823; 2,201,732; 1,819,788; 693,670). The Complainant manufactures emergency vehicles and related fire truck equipment, such as chassis, pumpers, tankers, and aerials. The Complainant has been involved in this business for more than 150 years.

The Respondent registered the domain name in question on March 12, 2000. The Respondent has made no use of the website that corresponds with the domain name.

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; 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 mark AMERICAN LAFRANCE. The domain name registered by the Respondent is identical to the Complainant’s mark. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Diego-Arturo Bruckner, D2000-0277 (WIPO May 30, 2000) (finding that the domain name <deutsche-bank-ag.com> is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark "Deutsche Bank AG").

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 and the panel accepts it as true.

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). The Respondent has made no use of the domain name.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question. 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).

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

As a former employee of a related business, the Respondent was previously connected with the Complainant’s business and the Respondent’s registration of Complainant’s mark suggest opportunistic bad faith. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that the domain name in question is "so obviously connected with the Complainant and its products that its very use by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith).

The Respondent has failed to develop the website that corresponds with the said domain name. See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) ("[I]t is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith"). This is one such circumstance. The Respondent has made no use of the domain name. The Respondent offered to transfer the domain name to the Complainant in exchange for fees, out of pocket costs, and personal time relating to the domain name. The Respondent is attempting to profit by transferring the domain name only if the Complainant pays for the Respondent’s personal time relating to the domain name. Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). In analyzing the totality of circumstances, the panel concludes 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 name, "AMERICANLAFRANCE.NET" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson