Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is SR Motorsports, Brentwood, CA, USA ("Complainant"). Respondent is Rotary Performance, Garland, TX, USA ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are "srmotorsports.com" and "sr-motorsports.com" registered with Network Solutions.

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 a panelist in this proceeding.

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on October 25, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 20, 2000.

On November 10, 2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names "srmotorsports.com" and "sr-motorsports.com" are registered with Network Solutions and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANNís Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On November 10, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 30, 2000 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 Respondentís registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@srmotorsports.com and postmaster@sr-motorsports.com by e-mail. Respondent requested an extension of time to respond to the Complaint. The Forum issued an extension until December 18, 2000. Nevertheless, Respondent did not submit a response.

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 December 21. 2000, pursuant to Complainantís request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Honorable 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 Forumís 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

The mark on which the Complaint is based is SRMotorsports. SRMotorsports is a company which specilizes in the retail sale of automobile performance parts and accessories, automobile repair and maintenance and support for automobile racing mainly for the Mazda RX-7 automobile. The majority of its business is conducted in the United States.

Complainant's company name is SRMOTORSPORTS. This name appears on all the company's literature, advertisements, brochures, letterhead, storefront and even the race car Complainantís agents drive at events to help promote the company.

Respondent is in direct competition with Complainant. Both specilize in the retail sale of automobile parts and accessories, automobile repair and maintenance, and automobile racing for the Mazda RX-7 automobile. Less than a dozen companies in the United States cater to this specialized market for the Mazda RX-7 and accordingly, both Complainant and Respondent are well aware of one another.

Respondent registered the domain names in question after Complainant started doing business under the name SRMOTORSPORTS. Respondent registered these domain names in September 1999 and has not used the domain names.

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 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 Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Complainant holds a common law mark for the term SRMOTORSPORTS. The domain names in question either are identical to Complainantís mark or differ only with the addition of a hyphen to Complainantís mark. The addition of a hyphen does not create a mark that is distinguishable from a Complainantís mark. It remains identical to or confusingly similar to a Complainantís mark. See InfoSpace.com v. Tenenbaum Ofer, D2000-0075 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) ("The domain name ëinfo-space.comí is identical to Complainantís INFOSPACE trademark. The addition of a hyphen and .com are not distinguishing features").

Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds that the domain names in question are identical to and confusingly similar to Complainantís mark. The Panel determines that Complainant has met the burden set forth under Policy  4.a.(i).

Respondent failed to produce evidence to rebut Complainant's allegations. This entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names at issue. See Ronson plc v. Unimetal Sanayai ve Tic.A.S., Retail Florist's Business, D2000-0011 (WIPO Mar. 11, 2000); Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000).

In addition, merely registering a domain name and then passively holding it are not sufficient to establish rights in or legitimate interests to a domain name or mark under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc. v. Entredomains, D2000-0387 (WIPO July 5, 2000); Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v. Mehmet Kahveci, D2000-1244 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2000).

Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds that Respondent established no rights to or legitimate interest in the domain names in issue and concluded that Complainant has met the burden set forth under Policy  4.a.(ii).

Respondent has not actively used the domain names but also has not offered them to Complainant for sale. The Panel must consider whether simple registration of the domain names and non-use, taking into account all circumstances of the case, rise to the level of being registration and use in bad faith. Although Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, Complainant must still prove under the Policy that Respondent has registered and is using the domain names in bad faith. Looking to the totality of the circumstances, the record shows that Respondent registered domain names that are identical to or confusingly similar to Complainantís trademark. Complainant and Respondent belong to a group of a relatively small number of companies that offer specific automobile racing services. Given the competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent was aware of Complainantís mark before registering the domain names. In addition, consumers cannot locate Complainant's companyís website when they type in Complainantís SRMOTORSPORTS name. This is a direct result of the actions of Respondent; therefore, it is obvious that the domain names were registered for the primary purpose of disrupting the business of ComplainantóRespondentís competitor. Policy  4.b.(iii). See Southern Exposure v. Southern Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered the domain name in question to disrupt the business of Complainant, a competitor of Respondent).

As such, the Panel finds that Complainant has met the burden set forth under Policy  4.a.(iii).

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), the Panel finds that the requested relief should be and is hereby granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain names, "srmotorsports.com" and "sr-motorsports.com", be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.