Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is WebMD Corporation, Atlanta, GA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Angela Payne James, Alston & Bird. The Respondent is Cupcake Patrol, Andalusia, PA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "wemd.com" registered with CORE.

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.

Ralph Yachnin, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on November 21, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 20, 2000.

On November 30, 2000, CORE confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "wemd.com" is registered with CORE and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CORE has verified that Respondent is bound by the CORE 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 4, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 26, 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@wemd.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 January 2. 2001, pursuant to Complainantís 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 Forumís 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 asserts the Respondentís domain name is confusingly similar to its registered mark. Further, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue because Respondent conducts no bona fide business under the domain name. Finally, Respondent has acted in bad faith by using a common misspelling of Complainantís famous mark to attract unsuspecting Internet users to its web site strictly for commercial gain.

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, WebMD Corporation, is one of the worldís leading providers of online healthcare information and practice management services. Complainant has used its famous mark, WEBMD, since March of í98 and officially registered the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark office in October of 2000. Complainantís services are directed to all aspects of the healthcare industry. Complainant provides these services via its web site WEBMD.COM. Through its various online services, Complainant offers consumers free healthcare information and services. Complainant has spent over $100 million dollars advertising and promoting its mark.

Respondent, John Zuccarini d/b/a Cupcake Party, has been found to be one of the most accomplished cybersquatters in the world by the United States District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania as well as several UDRP arbitration panels. Respondent has a strong history of registering misspellings of famous trademarks to derive profit from misdirected Internet traffic. Accordingly, Respondent has admitted to making a million dollars annually from his cybersquatting activities.

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.

Under the UDRP, Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a mark, and that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

Complainantís rights are evidenced by its registered mark, WEBMD, which is confusingly similar to Respondentís domain name wemd.com. Policy  4.a.(i). Respondentís domain name differs from Complainantís mark by one letter and is a common typo or misspelling of Complainantís mark. See Bank of American Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondentís domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainantís registered trademark "Bank of America" because it "takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet"); see also Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that deleting the letter "s" from the Complainantís UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark does not change the overall impression of the mark and thus is confusingly similar to the Complainantís mark).

The Panel finds that Complainant met its burden of showing the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to its mark, WEBMD.

Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name at issue. Policy  4(c)(ii). Respondent has not submitted any information that can lead the Panel to conclude it is using the domain name at issue in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the site. Policy  4(c)(i), (iii). Consequently, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question. See Pavillion Agency, Inc., Cliff Greenhouse and Keith Greenhouse v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., and Glenn Greenhouse, D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that "Respondentsí failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the Domain Names").

The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.

Respondentís domain name was registered to intentionally attempt to attract, solely for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site (or other online locations) by using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainantís famous mark. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent attracted users to a web site sponsored by the Respondent and created confusion with the Complainantís mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of that web site); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the Complainantís well known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name in question in bad faith.

Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), the Panel concludes that the requested relief is hereby granted. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name wemd.com be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.