Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is National Golf Buyers Association, Inc., Charleston, SC, USA ("Complainant") represented by Larry Coats, of Coats & Bennett, P.L.L.C. Respondent is Pro Star Ltd. Partnership, Lake Forest, IL, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <golfheadquarters.com> registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on May 18, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 22, 2001.

On May 21, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <golfheadquarters.com> is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 5.0 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@golfheadquarters.com 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 18, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson 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.

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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

(2) 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.

Complainant established its rights to the GOLF HEADQUARTERS mark in this record. Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s GOLF HEADQUARTERS mark. See Amherst v. IFC Corp., FA 96768 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 3, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <customcommerce.com> is identical to Complainant’s CUSTOM COMMERCE trademark registration); Croatia Airlines v. Kwen Kijong, AF-0302 (eResolution Sept. 25, 2000) (finding that the domain name "croatiaairlines.com" is identical to the Complainant's trademark "Croatia Airlines").

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) to show that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark.

Complainant has established its rights to and legitimate interests in the mark that is contained in its entirety in the domain name registered by Respondent. The proof permits the inference that Respondent registered and is passively holding the <golfheadquarters.com> domain name and that Respondent has made no use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). 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").

Complainants have shown that Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in domain name when Respondent is not known by mark).

Furthermore, there is no evidence that demonstrates Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <golfheadquarters.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), when Respondent passively holds the domain name. See Nike, Inc. v. Crystal Int’l, D2001-0102 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent made no use of the infringing domain names).

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark contained in its entirety in this domain name and that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests.

Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name establishes Respondent’s bad faith. See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith).

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 <golfheadquarters.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.