Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Rose Electronics, Houston, TX, USA ("Complainant") represented by Thomas L. Casagrande. The Respondent is Four Star Systems aka Lans of Texas dba Lanstar, Houston, TX, USA ("Respondent").

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

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

Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist

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

On January 18, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "roseelectronics.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 4.0 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 22, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 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@roseelectronics.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 February 19, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One 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 the Respondent.

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

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges the following:

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, Rose Electronics, is a Texas general partnership that designs and manufactures electronic switches used for linking networked computers and printers. Complainant’s products have been widely accepted in the computer networking industry.

Accordingly, Complainant’s products have been advertised and sold nationwide under its common law mark ROSE ELECTONICS for more than 10 years. Since 1984, Complainant’s company has grown from a two-person operation to its current size of over 100 employees, not including subcontractors and consultants.

Respondent, Four Star Systems a.k.a. Lans of Texas d.b.a. Lanstar, has been a reseller of Complainant’s computer switch products since 1995. In 1999, Respondent registered the domain name at issue. Complainant has attempted to resolve this dispute in a variety of ways, with no result. In October of 2000, Respondent, through its attorney, offered to sell its domain name to the Complainant for approximately $500,000.

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.

Complainant’s rights are evidenced by its common law mark ROSE ELECTRONICS. See Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes, D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000) (holding that ICANN Policy 4(a)(i) does not require Complainant to demonstrate ‘exclusive rights,’ but only that complainant has a bona fide basis for making the complaint in the first place).

The Panel finds the Respondent’s domain name, roseelectronics.com, to be identical to Complainant’s well established mark. See Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name ROBOHELP.COM is identical to complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference"); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) ("the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is likewise without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants").

The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name at issue, nor is Respondent using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Adamovske Strojirny v Tatu Rautiainen, D2000-1394 (WIPO Dec. 20, 2000) (finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where the Respondent is not commonly known by the distinct ADAST mark and has made no use of the domain name in question).

Moreover, Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in regard to the domain name in question. Accordingly, Respondent’s failure to show evidence sufficient to rebut Complainant’s allegations, entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in relation to the domain name at issue. See Boeing Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names and no use of the domain names has been proven); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that "Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the Domain Names").

The Panel finds that Respondent’s bad faith is demonstrated by its offer to sell the domain name at issue to Complainant for approximately $500,000. See Cream Pie Club v. Britany Halford, FA95235 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that bad faith existed where the Respondent offered the domain name for sale to the Complainant for $125,000); see also Dynojet Research, Inc. v. Norman, AF-0316 (eResolution Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith when he requested monetary compensation beyond out of pocket costs in exchange for the registered domain name).

Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be and is hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name, roseelectronics.com, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.