Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Minnesota Monthly Publications Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA ("Complainant") represented by Nicole A. Engisch, of Leonard, Street and Deinard. The Respondent is Key Enterprises d/b/a MSP Communications, Minneapolis, MN, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "tctaste.com" registered with Network Solutions.

On February 12, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist. The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on January 10, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 10, 2001.

On January 12, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "tctaste.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the 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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On January 15, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 5, 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@tctaste.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.

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 the Respondent.

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

The Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") state the following with regard to default cases:

In this case, Respondent has not submitted a response, and therefore this Panel may infer, for the purposes of this decision, that the averments in the complaint are true. See Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enterprises, Inc. D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that based on Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel draws two inferences: (1) that Respondent does not deny the facts asserted by Complainant, and (2) Respondent does not deny conclusions which the Complainant asserts can be drawn from the facts).

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.

The domain name tctaste.com, is identical to Complainant's registered trademark, TC TASTE. See Football Ass’n Ltd. v. UKIP, D2000-1359 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that domain name "facup.com" is clearly identical to the FA CUP trademark belonging to Complainant); 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 complainant has satisfied the requirement under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the Complainant's Mark. Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

Respondent’s failure to use the domain name further proves that he has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enterprises, Inc. D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that failure to provide a product or service or develop the site demonstrates that the Respondents have not established any rights or legitimate interests in the said domain name); Flor-Jon Films, Inc. v. Ron Larson, FA 94974 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 25, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s failure to develop the site demonstrates a lack of legitimate interest in the domain name). Therefore, the complainant has met the requirement of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

The passive holding of the domain name by a competitor of Complainant is a strong indication of 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); 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). Thus, the complainant has satisfied the bad faith requirement under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

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, "tctaste.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.