Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is Cargill, Incorporated, Minneapolis, MN, USA ("Complainant"). Respondent is Rick Juarez RJ, Inc., Honolulu, HI, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <cargill.net> registered with Register.com.

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

Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on May 16, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 17, 2001.

On May 18, 2001, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <cargill.net> is registered with Register.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On May 23, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 12, 2001 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@cargill.net by e-mail.

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 June 19, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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 Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "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 Respondent.

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

A. Complainant

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response to this matter.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the 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.

Respondent’s domain name <cargill.net> is identical to Complainant’s CARGILL mark. See Nike, Inc. v. Coleman, D2000-1120 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that the domain name <nike.net> is identical to the Complainant’s famous NIKE mark); see also Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Shan Computers, D2000-0325 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that the domain name <toshiba.net> is identical to the Complainant’s trademark TOSHIBA).

Therefore, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Respondent’s passive holding of the <cargill.net> domain name fails to demonstrate any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Am. Home Prod. Corp. v. Malgioglio, D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <solgarvitamins.com> where Respondent merely passively held the domain name).

There is no evidence in the record, and Respondent has not come forward to establish that it is commonly known by the <cargill.net> domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Systima Ltd. v. Byrne, D2001-0300 (WIPO Apr. 23, 2001) (finding "[t]here is no indication from the evidence before this Administrative Panel that the Respondent has ever been known by the said domain name so as to claim rights or a legitimate interest in accordance with Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy").

Furthermore, there is no evidence that demonstrates Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <cargill.net> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Chanel, Inc. v. Heyward, D2000-1802 (Feb. 23, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where "Respondent registered the domain name and did nothing with it").

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Respondent’s registration of the <cargill.net> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name prevents Complainant from reflecting its CARGILL mark in a corresponding domain name, and Complainant has established a pattern of such behavior by Respondent. See Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Associates, FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that Respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names which infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks); see also Pep Boys Manny, Moe, and Jack v. E-Commerce Today, Ltd., AF-0145 (eResolution May 3, 2000) (finding that where Respondent registered many domain names, held them hostage, and prevented the owners from using them constituted bad faith).

Respondent’s passive holding of the <cargill.net> domain name further establishes Respondent’s bad faith. See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

Having established all three of the elements under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief should be hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cargill.net> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.