Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Enron Corp., Houston, TX, USA ("Complainant") represented by W. Scott Brown, of Vinson & Elkins, LLP. The Respondent is Kirk Merrikh, Houston, TX, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "enrononline.tv", registered with Dot.Tv.

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

Henry W. Blizzard Jr. Retired Judge, as Panelist

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on December 11, 2000; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 15, 2000.

On December 11, 2000, Dot.Tv confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "enrononline.tv" is registered with Dot.Tv and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dot.Tv has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dot.Tv 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 December 15, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 4, 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 Respondentís registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@enrononline.tv by e-mail.

On January 8, 2001, pursuant to Complainantís request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Henry W. Blizzard, Jr as Panelist.

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

Complainant owns the mark ENRON as well as other related marks. It has used these marks in commerce with a broad scope of services throughout the world. It has pending applications to register certain marks including "enrononline". The use of this mark has generated widespread recognition of the mark "ENRON". The domain name in question uses the same exact spelling of the mark "ENRON" and is therefore confusingly similar to that of said mark of the Complainant. Further the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in question because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Respondent used the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain. Complainant alleges that the actions of Respondent are in bad faith since it is aware, or should be aware, of the wide recognition by the public of Complainantís mark. Further, bad faith is said to occur by Respondentís attempt to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on line locations by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainantís mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondentís web site location or of a product or service on the web site.

Respondent neither confirms nor denies the domain name in question is identical or confusingly similar to Complainantís mark. Respondent contents that it is a non-profit organization set-up to educate low-income Hispanic communities and has invested substantial time and money developing the domain name at issue and says it would place a disclaimer on its web site to avoid confusion with Complainantís mark.

Respondent contends it uses the domain name at issue with non- profit services which constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain. Respondent alleges that none of its actions constitutes bad faith within the meaning of the applicable rules and specifically denies it has attempted to sell the domain name in question or register other names of the Complainant.

The domain name in question is identical or confusingly similar to the well known mark owned by the Complainant of which the Complainant has a long and continuous use in that the dominant word ENRON is spelled the same way in both uses. It is also identical to Complainantís pending mark "ENRONONLINE".

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in question because it is not known by the name nor does it offer goods or services under this name. It does not fall within the category of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain.

Respondent has acted in bad faith in that it was aware of Complainantís famous mark prior to registering the name at issue and further, bad faith is shown by using the domain name to attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users to it web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainantís famous mark as the source of the web site.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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."

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 canceled 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

Complainant owns the Mark "ENRON" as well as other related marks and the name is well known by the public. The spelling is identical of the dominant component in the domain name in question and is therefore confusingly similar or identical to the mark of the Complainant. The fact that the word "Enron is used without spacing with the word "online" does not prevent confusion. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja Il, D2000-1409(WIPO Dec. 9, 2000). The overall impression is to associate this dominant name in the domain name in question, with complainantís mark.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in question because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question, nor has Respondent used the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain. Also, Respondent has not used the name for a legitimate offer of goods or services. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v Webdeal.com Inc. FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug.29, 2000)

Respondent was aware of the existence of Complainantís mark and that it was extensively used and well known to the public at the time of registration of the domain name in question and thus was aware of the consequences of using the name on the Internet. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum, April 17, 2000). Respondent also tarnished and disparaged the reputation and goodwill associated with complainantís mark by the use of the mark in the domain name. The conduct of the Respondent is in bad faith because of the manner of the use regardless of whether if falls within specific circumstances set out by Paragraph 4(b) of the policy. See Home Interiors, D2000-0010 (WIPO Mar. 7, 2000)

Based upon the findings and discussion and pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy, it is decided as follows: the relief requested by the Complainant is granted. The undersigned directs that the domain name "enrononline.tv" registered with Dot. TV Corporation Los Angeles, CA. USA, be transferred to Complainant, Enron Corporation, Houston, Texas, USA.

Henry W. Blizzard, Retired Judge, Arbitrator